There are people who believe that only the original version of something is a good version. That anything that follows is automatic trash. You'll find this with characters played by different actors, such as James Bond. A large number of people insist that the "original" James Bond, Sean Connery, is the only one worth watching. This thinking applies to songs, with some people going so far as to say that any musical artist that does a remake (they're actually called covers in musical terms) of a song sucks. And of course, it applies to movies, with people citing that the original version is always the best.
Yes, well, Sean Connery wasn't the original James Bond. Barry Nelson beat him to the part by 8 years.
You'd be hard pressed to find a musical artist who has been around for a while that didn't do a cover. Even the Beatles did a cover of Twist and Shout. After all, you can't be a Celine Dion fan if you don't like remakes, since pretty much every single album of hers is almost guaranteed to have a remake (or two or three) on it.
And yes, Virginia, some of the best versions of movies--indeed some of the best movies ever--are remakes.
I get that it's fashionable for Hollywood to do remakes. They truly seem to be on a kick of remaking 80s movies. I'll even go so far as to say that with all the 80s remakes going on over the last five or six years, I'm beginning to wonder if I'm reliving my teenage years. God, I hope not.
One of the most famous film noirs, the Bogart version of The Maltese Falcon, is actually the third version of that story. It was originally filmed in 1931 with Ricardo Cortez. It was filmed again as Satan Met A Lady in 1936 with Warren William and Bette Davis. But it was the third version in 1941 that gets remembered and loved. I haven't watched the 1936 version yet, but I have seen the 1931 version. It isn't bad and it is Pre-Code, so it's racier than the 1941 version, but it famously blows it in the ending. And none of the cast--not even Dwight Frye as Wilmer--match their 1941 counterparts.
Cecil B. DeMille and Alfred Hitchcock apparently both thought remakes had their place as they both remade earlier films of theirs in 1956. DeMille chose to remake his 1923 The Ten Commandments while Hitchcock remade his 1934 The Man Who Knew Too Much. There's plenty of debate about the Hitchcock films--both versions have their fans--but most people prefer the 56 version of The Ten Commandments.
Speaking of religious films that got a superior remake, it is worth mentioning the 1959 film that won more Academy Awards than any other, a record it held until it was tied in 1997 by Titanic. That film, Ben Hur, is probably the best argument you can make for good remakes. In fact, the 1950s is peppered with remakes that are either as good as what came before or just plain kick the original in the teeth: House of Wax, Miss Sadie Thompson, A Star Is Born, Hound of the Baskervilles, Dracula, The Curse of Frankenstein, and The Mummy are all pretty good examples.
"Okay, so they knew how to do good remakes in the 1950s", some of you may be grumbling. "They can't possibly do good remakes nowadays."
Actually, they can and do. I love the Rat Pack myself, but the George Clooney version of Ocean's 11 beats the Rat Pack version in almost every level. For one thing, it's more fun. And while it can be argued that the Rat Pack version has the better ending, that and Dean Martin singing "Ain't That a Kick In The Head" are about the only things the original has over the remake.
What about King Kong, the poster child for poorly thought out remakes? It is true that Dino De Laurentis unleashed a mind-numbingly awful remake of King Kong in 1976. In fact, it's pretty shocking how the special effects of the 1976 version are such an epic fail as compared to the 1933 original. I mean, they just look cheap. But, while Peter Jackson's 2005 version isn't better than the 1933 version--it's far too bloated and excessive for it's own good--it's actually a pretty good movie. It's certainly not as bad as the 1976 version. And if you could cut a good hour out of the movie, it would likely give the original a real run for the money.
Other good, recent remakes include 3:10 to Yuma and True Grit, both of which can be argued as being better than their previous versions. Certainly 3:10 to Yuma is better. True Grit is at least as good if not better than the Wayne version.
The most common (and absurd) argument I've heard regarding remakes is the age old question of "Why do they remake only good movies? Why don't they remake bad movies to make better versions?" First off, they do remake bad movies from time to time. 1953's Catwomen of the Moon was remade in 1958 as Missile to the Moon. 1982's My Bloody Valentine was remade in 2009 as My Bloody Valentine 3D. That's just two such examples. Second, do you know what you get when you remake a bad movie? How about...a bad movie? Neither one of those remakes are what you could call an improvement on their originals. Besides, do you really want a remake of The Terror of Tiny Town or Reefer Madness? I didn't think so.
Are there rotten remakes? Of course there are. Nobody is arguing that. 1988's The Blob and 1994's The Getaway are both pretty poor, just proving the adage that you don't remake Steve McQueen.
Are remakes necessary then becomes the next snooty question. Necessity is not the point nor should it be the question, however. The question is or at least should be, like any film, are they good, bad, or indifferent. As with almost any type of film--except porn, of course--you can find examples of all three. So a generalization of "all remakes are awful bastardizations of the original" is really pretty silly at the end of the day. The great ones or at least the good ones will stick around and probably outshine the original to the point that we don't recognize that they aren't the original and the bad ones will be flushed down the drain like most bad movies do.
I don't watch every remake. I still haven't watched the redo of Footloose and I seriously doubt I will. They can keep the slasher remakes, too, as I have no interest in them. I had no interest in the original slasher movies in the 1980s, so why would I be interested in their remakes? But I'm not going to write off remakes entirely and some that are still coming have me interested, such as this year's Godzilla. So relax and remember, this is nothing new. More to the point, this can just as often be a good thing as bad.
No comments:
Post a Comment