Post by RNL on Jun 30, 2008 21:10:34 GMT
This was written in response to the general irrational outrage regarding the proposed Seven Samurai 'remake'.
People should think about what they actually mean when they call a film a 'remake'.
They're not literally remaking these films (in the sense that Tarkovsky shot Stalker, then lost all the footage in a lab accident, then shot it again). They're making films that, generally, have a plot premise, character types and some key scenes that are roughly the same as an older film from which this new one has taken these elements and its title.
It's a fairly vague idea. Most films follow pretty strict formulas (and these remakes are all genre films), so it seems inconsistent to get bent out of shape over the production of the 'remake' of, say, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and not give a crap about the production of, say, Wrong Turn. Both came out in 2003, and I would go so far as to say that, with all the extra elements added to the plot of the 'remake', the plot of Wrong Turn actually bears a closer resemblance to the original Chainsaw. Tonally and visually, too. And thematically, since the additional plot elements in the 'remake' broaden the focus from the core thematic impetus of urbanocentric xenophobia (which is what all of these similar films are founded on).
Most 'remakes' don't even have the luxury of having a semi-iconic character like Leatherface to distinguish themselves from the pack. Mostly they're completely unremarkable genre films of slightly varying quality.
How many films share the plot premise, "Relatable urban characters lost/marooned in a rural area at the mercy of deranged locals"? How far beyond that basic premise does the original Texas Chainsaw go? The only variables are the incidentals (how they get lost, how they get killed, etc) and the superficials (where they're from/going, what their names are, etc). You can add as much stuff as you want to your film (whether it's nominally a 'remake' or not), but that's your story. There are only so many stories to tell, and they've all been told innumerable times. It's all about how. And 'badly' is how with the typical mainstream Hollywood horror movie, irrespective of whether its a 'remake' or an 'original'. And the tedious thing is that they're all bad in exactly the same way. I could swear they're all shot, scored and edited by the same people.
Is it the use of the title of a 'classic' that's so offensive? The marketability of the titles is all that's getting them green-lighted anyway. When a Stranger Calls took the first 20 minutes of the original's plot and made that the whole story because the rest of that film isn't much good. Whereas The Omen pretty much beat-for-beat replicated the plot of the original. All the studio (which already holds the copyright on the original) cares about is the age/class/gender-specific market research that says, "80% of white suburban 15-year-olds surveyed like the title When a Stranger Calls and associate it with the slasher genre." Greenlight. It's a bullshit reason to make a movie, obviously, but it also illustrates how unreasonable it is to act like a 'remake' is... well, anything but a title.
Also (and this is a point that, unlike the above, is often brought up), why is it acceptable to cover or remix a song but not to reinterpret a film? What's the harm? It might be better in some ways and worse in others. It might be an unmitigated disaster. But it doesn't erase the older film from existence. If anything, it, regardless of its quality, grants the original film a new context. We've had two 'remakes' of King Kong, for instance. Not one of the many, many ways in which the 1976 film fails is of any detriment to the lasting impact of the 1933 film. Nor are the various pros and cons of the 2005 film.
A film like King Kong is different to a genre film with a minimal plot like Texas Chainsaw. 'Remakes' of '70s camp sci-fi like Logan's Run and Westworld are apparently on the way. These you could look at as retellings (like Burton's Planet of the Apes and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) because the stories are distinctive enough to not be interchangable with a million other films.
You might get away with calling Van Sant's Psycho a remake, since he actually attempted to recreate Hitchcock's film shot for shot, scene for scene, word for word. Likewise Haneke's Funny Games U.S.. These are attempts at cinematic mimicry. They're not just telling the same story. A film is not just its story.
Anyway, my point is, the fact that most of these 'remakes' are bad films is a given, but they're no worse for being remakes than they would be if they weren't remakes (which they apparently wouldn't be if their titles were changed, anyway).
So if there's a 'remake' of The Seven Samurai, so what? It's not like it couldn't be good. It probably won't be good, because it probably won't be made by very good filmmakers, because it's most likely a cynical cash-grab on the part of the producers. At best it'll probably be something like The Last Samurai. But that's only if they see it as a 'prestige' film, which they most likely don't since 'remakes' are so stigmatised. The likelihood would be a period action-adventure thing. Anyway, it's not like The Seven Samurai hasn't been 'remade' already with incidental and superficial plot alterations as The Magnificent Seven.
People should think about what they actually mean when they call a film a 'remake'.
They're not literally remaking these films (in the sense that Tarkovsky shot Stalker, then lost all the footage in a lab accident, then shot it again). They're making films that, generally, have a plot premise, character types and some key scenes that are roughly the same as an older film from which this new one has taken these elements and its title.
It's a fairly vague idea. Most films follow pretty strict formulas (and these remakes are all genre films), so it seems inconsistent to get bent out of shape over the production of the 'remake' of, say, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and not give a crap about the production of, say, Wrong Turn. Both came out in 2003, and I would go so far as to say that, with all the extra elements added to the plot of the 'remake', the plot of Wrong Turn actually bears a closer resemblance to the original Chainsaw. Tonally and visually, too. And thematically, since the additional plot elements in the 'remake' broaden the focus from the core thematic impetus of urbanocentric xenophobia (which is what all of these similar films are founded on).
Most 'remakes' don't even have the luxury of having a semi-iconic character like Leatherface to distinguish themselves from the pack. Mostly they're completely unremarkable genre films of slightly varying quality.
How many films share the plot premise, "Relatable urban characters lost/marooned in a rural area at the mercy of deranged locals"? How far beyond that basic premise does the original Texas Chainsaw go? The only variables are the incidentals (how they get lost, how they get killed, etc) and the superficials (where they're from/going, what their names are, etc). You can add as much stuff as you want to your film (whether it's nominally a 'remake' or not), but that's your story. There are only so many stories to tell, and they've all been told innumerable times. It's all about how. And 'badly' is how with the typical mainstream Hollywood horror movie, irrespective of whether its a 'remake' or an 'original'. And the tedious thing is that they're all bad in exactly the same way. I could swear they're all shot, scored and edited by the same people.
Is it the use of the title of a 'classic' that's so offensive? The marketability of the titles is all that's getting them green-lighted anyway. When a Stranger Calls took the first 20 minutes of the original's plot and made that the whole story because the rest of that film isn't much good. Whereas The Omen pretty much beat-for-beat replicated the plot of the original. All the studio (which already holds the copyright on the original) cares about is the age/class/gender-specific market research that says, "80% of white suburban 15-year-olds surveyed like the title When a Stranger Calls and associate it with the slasher genre." Greenlight. It's a bullshit reason to make a movie, obviously, but it also illustrates how unreasonable it is to act like a 'remake' is... well, anything but a title.
Also (and this is a point that, unlike the above, is often brought up), why is it acceptable to cover or remix a song but not to reinterpret a film? What's the harm? It might be better in some ways and worse in others. It might be an unmitigated disaster. But it doesn't erase the older film from existence. If anything, it, regardless of its quality, grants the original film a new context. We've had two 'remakes' of King Kong, for instance. Not one of the many, many ways in which the 1976 film fails is of any detriment to the lasting impact of the 1933 film. Nor are the various pros and cons of the 2005 film.
A film like King Kong is different to a genre film with a minimal plot like Texas Chainsaw. 'Remakes' of '70s camp sci-fi like Logan's Run and Westworld are apparently on the way. These you could look at as retellings (like Burton's Planet of the Apes and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) because the stories are distinctive enough to not be interchangable with a million other films.
You might get away with calling Van Sant's Psycho a remake, since he actually attempted to recreate Hitchcock's film shot for shot, scene for scene, word for word. Likewise Haneke's Funny Games U.S.. These are attempts at cinematic mimicry. They're not just telling the same story. A film is not just its story.
Anyway, my point is, the fact that most of these 'remakes' are bad films is a given, but they're no worse for being remakes than they would be if they weren't remakes (which they apparently wouldn't be if their titles were changed, anyway).
So if there's a 'remake' of The Seven Samurai, so what? It's not like it couldn't be good. It probably won't be good, because it probably won't be made by very good filmmakers, because it's most likely a cynical cash-grab on the part of the producers. At best it'll probably be something like The Last Samurai. But that's only if they see it as a 'prestige' film, which they most likely don't since 'remakes' are so stigmatised. The likelihood would be a period action-adventure thing. Anyway, it's not like The Seven Samurai hasn't been 'remade' already with incidental and superficial plot alterations as The Magnificent Seven.
