I really don't understand why Hollywood persists in remaking movies that were done right the first time. I could understand re-doing a movie that had potential, but was screwed up the first time, but re-doing one that was done right just makes no sense.
Take for example, the movie Psycho. The original by Alfred Hitchcock was a beautifully made movie that was popular at the box office and remains popular even as a TV rerun. It was well written, well acted, well photographed and well directed. But someone felt the need to remake the movie. The remake wasn't bad, but it was certainly no improvement over the original. And today, if you want to see Psycho, anyone with movie knowledge will direct you to the original.
Now they're doing it again. At the height of his career, Jimmy Stewart starred in a movie version of the play Harvey -- which won the Pulitzer Prize for playwright Mary Chase. The movie is about a kind and generous man whose best friend is a giant invisible rabbit named Harvey, and how his family tries to put him away as "insane". It's a wonderful movie with a lot to say, and if you haven't seen it, I definitely recommend that you do so at your earliest opportunity. Harvey is a movie that was done right the first time.
But once again, Hollywood thinks it can improve on perfection. Plans are being made to do a remake of Harvey. It is being cast right now, and shooting is expected to start early next year. Sadly, Steven Spielberg has signed on to direct the movie.
Don't get me wrong. I'm a Spielberg fan. I think he's made some great movies, and his remake of this classic will probably be a good watchable movie. But it won't improve on the original. You just can't improve on perfection.
I personally think the classic movies should be left alone. Trying to improve on them is useless (and usually flops at the box office). If you can't find or write a new creative script to shoot, maybe you shouldn't be making movies -- even if you've been successful in the past.
I agree with you on this one, jobsanger. The originals are almost always (if not always) better than the sequels.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of Harvey, I was in London back in 1975, and walking down the street in the theatre district, I saw a huge sign for Harvey, starring James Stewart. Thinking it was the movie, I bought a ticket for the matinee, which was scheduled to start in just a few minutes.
You can imagine my pleasant surprise when I discovered that it was the stage version. I actually got a chance to see James Stewart re-create the part of Elwood P. Dodd live on stage, some 25 years after the movie.
Now that was a good sequel!
I have to disagree. We're always redoing plays, over and over again. Bands are always covering old songs. I see nothing wrong with someone taking a stab at an old film.
ReplyDeleteNot the same thing, AA. You can't go back and see an old version of a play -- it's gone forever. You just have to hope the new production is good. But the original of a movie is always there to be enjoyed.
ReplyDeleteTed makes an interesting distinction.
ReplyDeleteUsing a term of art from copyright law, motion pictures are creative works "fixed in a tangible medium" (a prerequisite for copyright registration) Separate authorship can be claimed in the editing, directing, script/screenplay, cinematography and production of the work. I can't think of any other category of copyrightable material that contains so many distinct creative components. Movies are more than the mere sum of their parts.
Compare this to my favorite art form - opera - which likewise comprises many parts (music, libretto, staging, even choreography). But because opera is a performing art, each peformance is in a sense a work unto itself.
People sometimes ask me why I go to see the same opera on numerous occasions. They may ask, "How many times can you see Carmen anyway?" I usually respond with something like, "How many times can you see the Cowboys play the Redskins?" Obviously, there aren't as many variables, but the same opera with a different cast, a different director and/or a different staging is, in a sense, a new creation.
(cont'd)
Motion pictures are more like paintings or sculptures - frozen in time and space. People rarely consider making "sequels" to, say da Vinci's Mona Lisa or Rodin's The Thinker (with the exception of parodies). Just as there's only one Mona Lisa or The Thinker, any remake of Citizen Cane or Casablanca ends up being a poor imitation of the original, IMHO.
ReplyDeleteSome movie purists even consider colorization to be an adulteration of the real thing. I'm not quite that radical, although I prefer the original black and white, if that's how it was first created.
Using the analogy of fine art, could you improve on Picasso's Guernica by breaking out the crayolas?