Remakes

No Thanks, Mr Spielberg

~ beetleypete ~ 65 Comments

I have just been watching a feature on the BBC News, promoting the remake of the film musical ‘West Side Story’, directed by Steven Spielberg.

Being old enough to have seen the 1961 film on release in the cinema, it remained a musical I really liked, in a genre that I don’t generally gravitate to. When I heard the film was being remade for release in 2021, I really couldn’t see the point. After all, the songs and music are the same, and the story virtually unchanged. The original film is still amazing to watch, even sixty years after it was released.

So why do it? Why not just show the original in cinemas again, for a ‘new audience’?

Watching Spielberg being interviewed this morning, I got my answer.

The original film is no longer considered to be ‘representative’. In the new age of political correctness, where history has to be reworked and authenticated to satisfy the media and some minorities, it seems that Mr Spielberg did not think there were enough ‘real Puerto Ricans’ in the original version.

Of course, Natalie Wood was the lead female character, Maria, and she was a ‘white American’ actress. Rita Moreno co-starred and she was Puerto Rican. But there were not enough minority actors in the film to satisfy Mr Spielberg, so he sought to remake it to ‘rectify that fault’.

If we follow this through, then I suspect many old musicals will have to be remade, and very soon.

‘The King and I’ starred Yul Brynner, playing the King of Thailand.
How dare they not cast a Thai actor in the role?

‘Cabaret’ stars Joel Grey as the master of ceremonies in the Kit Kat club.
Come on, we know he’s not German. Get that film remade tout suite!

‘The Sound Of Music’ tried to fool us into believing that Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer were Austrians.
Why didn’t they use Austrian actors? I want to know!

‘Chitty Chitty Bang Bang’ starred Dick Van Dyke as an English professor.
We all know he is American, and there were plenty of suitable actors available in England. Get that remake made!

I could go on, but will spare you more of my sarcasm.

It is just complete nonsense.

No thanks, Mr Spielberg. If I want to watch West Side Story again, it will be the 1961 version for me.

An Alphabet Of Things I Don’t Like: R

~ beetleypete ~ 68 Comments

Remakes.

It will come as no surprise to long-term followers of this blog that film remakes feature for ‘R’. With a handful of exceptions, the constant remakes of great films are usually unnecessary, and completely pointless too.

Yes, they remade ‘Carrie’, that classic Stephen King adaptation from 1976.
And it was truly awful.

Taking on one of the best British gangster thrillers ever, they remade the wonderful ‘Get Carter’, in 2000.
Why? Please tell me why!

Seemingly out to murder another classic Michael Caine film, they remade ‘The Italian Job’, in 2003.
COME ON! Just stop it!

I could also write a book on how they remake foreign language films for people who can’t handle subtitles, always ruining them in the process.
One of the worst examples has to be ‘The Vanishing’. They changed the ending in the US version, to make it ‘happy’.
GRRRRRRRRRR!

And don’t get me started on Japanese Anime classics with western actors voicing the characters!
How wrong does this sound? Very wrong, believe me.

BUT WAIT!

While I am on ‘R’, I have to mention ‘Reimagining’. In case you don’t know, this is the blatant plagiarism of classic fiction, ‘Reimagined’ for the modern reader. Take ‘Jane Eyre’, set it in modern-day California, call it something else, and you have ‘reimagined’ the original. You get the idea.

DOUBLE GRRRRRRRRR!

Film makers and writers, I have a suggestion for you.

DO SOMETHING ORIGINAL!

One Film, Four Versions: Mutiny On The Bounty

~ beetleypete ~ 40 Comments

In 1962, I was taken by my parents to see a lavish epic at the cinema. Starring Marlon Brando, Trevor Howard, and Richard Harris, this was a glorious tecnicolour film , with exotic south seas locations, and a real sense of history. As it is a true story, there would be no surprises of course, but that didn’t matter. All we had to do was to sit back and let the lavish spectacle wash over us. And we did, and we loved it. My Dad had told me that it was a remake, and he had seen a version made in 1935, starring Clark Gable, with Charles Laughton as the stern Captain Bligh. But I hadn’t seen that one, so was content with the wonderful film I got to see when I was just 10 years old.

Just over five years later, I got the chance to see that earlier film, and thought that Laughton was superb in the role of Bligh. Despite Gable being Gable, I wondered for a long time whether or not I actually preferred the 1935 black and white film.

Much later, I found out that both were remakes. The first version of this story had been made into a film in 1933, called ‘In The Wake Of The Bounty’. Made in Australia, it gave Errol Flynn his first starring role, and is more or less forgotten now. It concerned itself more with the aftermath of the famous mutiny, and the lives of the mutineers. I have never seen it, so will have to exclude it from this comparison.

When I was 32 years old, in 1984, the story got the remake treatment once again, this time called ‘The Bounty’. Anthony Hopkins starred as Bligh, with Mel Gibson as Christian, as well as roles for Laurence Olivier, and Edward Fox. The excellent cast is further enhanced by the presence of Bernard Hill, Phil Davis, Daniel Day-Lewis, and Liam Neeson. I saw a trailer, and liked the look of it, so went off to the cinema to see it. And I was glad I did. Life at sea was convincing, and the relationship between Bligh and Christian better developed. It felt authentic too, especially in the sequences where the ship is having trouble sailing in terrible weather. On this occasion, the casting won through, and I thought the film was excellent, the best version I had seen

Not only was a remake better than the original version I had seen, it was better than no less than three earlier versions. Something very unusual, as far as I am concerned.

One film, four versions: The Postman Always Rings Twice

~ beetleypete ~ 35 Comments

When I was in my teens, I went to see a great film noir thriller from 1946, starring John Garfield and the gorgeous Lana Turner. This was the third version of the film, with the two earlier ones made in France and Italy, using the same book as the source material, but with different titles. So when I saw this in the 1960s, I was already watching what was essentially the second remake, though I have still never seen the European films.

Garfield plays Frank, a handsome young drifter. One day he stops at a diner, and finds it is run by a glamorous young woman, Cora, (Turner) who is married to the much older owner. He starts to work there, and naturally becomes attracted to the glamorous Cora. They begin a steamy love affair, and plan to run off together. When she learns that her husband plans to sell up and take her to live in Canada, they become desperate, and hatch a plot to kill him. The bungled plot does succeed, but also attracts the attention of the local police. Eventually, Cora and Frank become paranoid, and turn on each other. Without further spoilers, I can say no more, except that it is very good indeed.

In 1981, the American version was remade in the US, making it the fourth time the book had been filmed.
Starring Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange, the story was the same, with a slight (but crucial) change to the ending, and it was set during the depression, in California. But this was 1981, so it is much sexier. Love scenes are no-holds-barred, and there is undeniable chemistry between the two leads. It was written for the screen by David Mamet, so sounds right too. And it looks good, with authentic sets, and star performances all round. But changing the ending was a bad idea. The film lost money at first, and critical reviews were at best lukewarm. So, good effort, but the Lana Turner film is better.

One film, three versions: King Kong

~ beetleypete ~ 56 Comments

When I was around eight years old, one of our neighbours owned a home projector. He would fix a white sheet to the wall of his living room, and invite us in to watch films that he projected onto his ‘screen’. One of those was the original 1933 film, ‘King Kong’, starring Fay Wray. I thought it was just amazing. It was scary, (for a youngster) exciting, and the huge gorilla was so well done, even though we of course knew it was a model. The cast took it all very seriously, from the scenes in ‘Africa’, to the Ape rampaging around New York City, and the effects and performances were enthralling to me as a youngster.
When the poor beast is shot down from the top of the Empire State Building, we cried. Then asked if we could watch the whole film again.

In 1976, it was remade. Starring Jessica Lange and Jeff Bridges, the story is much the same, but Kong meets his end atop the World Trade Centre instead. By this time, special effects had moved on, and the film won an Oscar for them. But even though I had also moved on, I still yearned for the simpler original, and that feeling from 1960, when I first watched it.

That wasn’t the end of it of course. Once again, in 2005, someone came up with the idea of a third remake, this time starring Naomi Watts and Jack Black. They now had all the new bells and whistles to throw at the film, including CGI, and the benefit of the two earlier versions to work from. This time it won three Oscars, but it had no heart, and felt silly to watch, as far as I was concerned. I sought out a TV showing of the 1933 film instead, and settled down to watch the only one worth my time.

In 2017, there was a film made called ‘Kong: Skull Island’, but that’s not really the same film.
I have no doubt they will eventually make another version. I’m sticking with the first one.

One film, four versions: A Star Is Born

~ beetleypete ~ 44 Comments

Some films are remade a lot more than once. In the case of this film, there are no less than four versions, as well as some thinly-disguised ‘copies’. Starting in 1937, with the original film starring Frederick March and Janet Gaynor, it was remade in 1954 with Judy Garland and James Mason, and again in 1976, with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson. A fourth version is soon to be in cinemas, starring pop sensation Lady Gaga. So, take your pick, and choose your personal favourite.

This is a rare case where I enjoyed the remakes as much as the original, though I have yet to see the latest one. I even preferred Judy Garland in her 1950s film to the rather stagey original, and really enjoyed the singing of Streisand in her one.

If you have never seen it, the story is simple enough. A female protege of a fading male star is taken under his wing, and becomes a huge success, much to the annoyance of the man involved. In the 1937 original it was about acting and film stars. In the 1954 remake, it was about a musical star, so Garland could sing. Then in 1976 Streisand is a talented unknown singer, and Kristofferson a drunken rock star. Nothing much changes in all three films, except the singing.

Here’s the original.

Now Judy, singing of course.

Here’s Barbra. What a voice.

And here’s Lady Gaga, in 2018.

If I could only choose one, I would stick with Judy Garland. That would always be my first choice to watch, from this crop of remakes. The original version lacks the music, but has plenty of acting talent, and the 1976 film has Streisand’s vocals, but feels like a messier film all round. As for Lady Gaga, I will have to let you know.

One film, two versions: Gloria

~ beetleypete ~ 36 Comments

Remakes are not restricted to foreign language films of course. When the industry runs out of ideas, and has made the latest one of the seemingly endless sequels to a once-decent slasher film, they turn to the back catalogue of the film industry, and poach a story from the archives.
(OK, not poach. They generally pay for the rights, but you know what I mean. 🙂 )

In 1980, the distinguished actor and film-maker John Cassavetes directed his actress wife Gena Rowlands in a modern crime thriller. It was about the fifty-something girlfriend of a mobster in New York, and her struggle to protect a local young boy who is being hunted by the Mafia. They suspect he may have witnessed something, and has evidence that could harm them, so want to eliminate him. Following the brutal murders of every one of the boy’s family, Gloria goes on the run with him, later shocked to discover that she is now a suspect in the murders, and the kidnapping of the boy.

The film becomes an exciting crime thriller, with Gloria and the boy hunted down by the gangsters, and having to avoid capture by the police too. She calls upon all her strengths and past experiences to deal with the situation, proving herself to be tough and resourceful, despite the number of hit men being sent out to find her and the child. Rowlands is a wonderful actress who inhabits Gloria completely, so is totally believable in the role. The script is great, locations authentic, and the pacing is just right too. All in all, a very competent thriller, that deserves a lot more attention 38 years after it was released.

Nineteen years later, and along comes the remake. It looked good on paper. Sidney Lumet, one of my favourite directors. Sharon Stone, a good actress, and well chosen for the role. Jeremey Northam, a distinguished British actor, and the wonderful George C. Scott too! So, I just had to see it, didn’t I?
Well, they changed a lot of the story, that’s for sure. Stone was good, and the rest of the cast stood up, with reliable direction from Lumet. It was a decent stand-alone thriller that didn’t need that connection to 1980. But it was a different film, and should have been called something else, as it certainly didn’t do justice to the original.
Shame about that.

One film, two versions: The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

~ beetleypete ~ 57 Comments

I don’t read as much as I used to, and the last few years I have read very few books. But one I did read was Stieg Larsson’s ‘The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo’. In 2009, I saw the film based on the book was being released, so hurried off to see it at a London Cinema. I wasn’t disappointed. Unusually, the main characters (played by Noomi Rapace and Michael Nyqvist) were exactly as I had imagined them in my head, and the Swedish locations were just right too.

The story is the first part of a trilogy. So not unlike a serial, it leaves you wondering at the end. But what an unusual and involving story it is, with the twists and turns surrounding the lives of a crusading journalist, and the abused and damaged girl he encounters. It’s a tough tale, featuring a domestic violence, an abused child, sexual assault, rape, and elements of torture too. But it is so well done, those incidents never seem exploitative, or salacious. A web of corruption, murder and betrayal, abuse of power, and sweet revenge. It all adds up to an edge of the seat thriller that leaves you wanting more. And you get more; two more episodes, in separate films.
The leads are brilliant in their roles, and well supported by a list of very good actors that all earned their money, and my admiration. Direction is tight, the script sharp, and the experience for the film-goer is completely satisfying. Please watch it, if you like hard-hitting thrillers.

Just two years later, the talented American director David Fincher made a straight remake of the film, in English. He filmed it in Sweden, and packed the cast with A-list talent. We got Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara, Christopher Plummer, the excellent Stellan Skarsgard, Joely Richardson, and even Steven Berkoff. They were all well-cast, and nicely suited for their roles. Fincher didn’t mess around too much with either script or story, making it as a scene by scene copy, and everyone did their job just right. I left it alone, still reeling from the excellence of the original film. The audiences loved it, the critics liked it a lot, and suddenly it became ‘The’ film of the book. I waited almost two years to see it, when it came on television.

So, given all of the above, why didn’t I like it? Here’s a list of reasons why.
1) It was pointless.
2) The only purpose it served was to make the same film in English.
3) The first film was better, in every respect. Cast, atmosphere, sense of menace, acting.
4) Having A-listers like Craig makes you think of him in other roles, especially Bond. That makes it harder to take him seriously as a worn-out crusading journalist.
5) It didn’t have Noomi Rapace in it, and she owned the role as the girl.
6) It was pointless. (Did I mention that?)

I failed to be interested enough to even watch it past the first hour. Two weeks later, the Swedish film came on TV again, and I watched that, enjoying it even more the third time.

Just stick with the original, please.

One film, two versions: The Quiet American

~ beetleypete ~ 34 Comments

Today’s choice is a rare example of a remake that is so much better than the original, it leaves me recommending the modern version as the only one to watch. In 1958, Hollywood filmed the Graham Greene novel ‘The Quiet American’, starring Audie Murphy and Michael Redgrave. Neither stars were the first choices, or even the second, and despite some filming taking place in Vietnam (where the story is set) much of it was shot in Italy instead.

If you don’t know the story, it is set in 1952, during the revolt against French rule in the country. A young American (Murphy) has arrived to work for an aid organisation, though he may secretly be a CIA spy, checking out the country for later US involvement in the region. He meets a distinguished British journalist (Redgrave) and falls for the older man’s beautiful Vietnamese girlfriend, taking her away from his friend. As a result, the journalist exposes America’s shady dealings of supporting the anti-communists in the country, and giving them arms.

The film outraged Graham Greene by changing the political emphasis, and making it appear that America was doing the ‘right thing’. And despite a classically understated and powerful performance from the distinguished Redgrave, Audie Murphy was woefully miscast in his role.

Then in 2002, another version was made, by Philip Noyce. This starred Michael Caine and Brendan Fraser, with Caine as the journalist, and Fraser in the role played by Audie Murphy in the earlier film. By this time of course, we had seen the French defeated in Vietnam, and the long war that followed against the US and their South Vietnamese allies. Most people had some idea of the background, and the events that led up to it, shown in Greene’s novel, and the earlier film.

But crucially, the modern film stuck to Greene’s original story, and ending. The often clumsy Fraser stepped up to portray the American so well, and Michael Caine gave one of his best performances as the world-weary journalist, which earned him three nominations for Best Actor. The whole film was shot in Vietnam, with locations including Hanoi and Saigon. This was the film that should have been made in 1958, if it hadn’t been for casting errors, and the dark shadow of the McCarthy witch-hunts. If you have never seen it, I really recommend you do.

One film, two versions: The Vanishing

~ beetleypete ~ 31 Comments

In 1988, I watched a riveting European thriller, a Dutch/French co-production called ‘Spoorloss’. The title was changed to ‘The Vanishing’, for British audiences. I hardly recognised anyone in the film, and of course the subtitles for both languages didn’t concern me in the least. It was made by the Dutch director George Sluizer, also someone I wasn’t very familiar with.

The story is simple. A Dutch couple are on holiday in France. It is obvious that they are very much in love. They stop at a service station to buy petrol, and the woman goes into the shop. She doesn’t return to her husband (Rex), or the car, and he begins to search for her frantically. The Police are called, and a general search is ordered, but no trace is found, and he has no option but to return to Holland.

Three years later, and Rex is till searching for her, but now beginning to lose hope. He has a new girlfriend, and she helps him, as he has received anonymous postcards suggesting if he returns to France, he can discover what happened to his wife. He returns to the area, where he is approached by a man who tells him he is the kidnapper, and he offers to tell the truth about what happened, if Rex accompanies him somewhere. With no plot spoilers, I will not ruin what is a truly riveting ending. Suffice to say it is a wonderful film, and I recommend it to everyone.

In 1993, I read that the film was being remade in Hollywood, by the same director. The cast of A-list stars was led by Jeff Bridges, along with Keifer Sutherland, Sandra Bullock, and Nancy Travis. How bad could it be? I thought. Great cast, same director, same story, and US locations. I didn’t bother to go to the cinema, instead buying the film on VHS. That answered my question.

Very bad indeed.

Everything was overblown. The couple were played by Sutherland and Bullock, and didn’t seem to fit. The bad guy was played by Jeff Bridges, with his ‘How to be a villain’ book open on page one. As if that wasn’t bad enough, they then went and CHANGED THE ENDING, rendering everything that had gone before into a complete waste of time and talent. The critics were not happy, and neither was I.