This post falls under the category of “the state of things.” I was thinking of posting a wise and lengthy denunciation of this trend in Hollywood of remaking horror films from the 70s (and importing more recent ones from Japan). But I’ve run dry of wisdom, and in order to make this post lengthy, I’ve decided to add a little twist to the plot. That is, rather than howl and fuss over a rash of (mostly subpar) remakes over the past several years (“Amityville Horror,” being the most recent), I wonder if it’d be more interesting for us to consider that Hollywood was in the business of recycling from the get-go. Even before there WAS a Hollywood, there was the remake. How many Frankensteins were there before Boris Karloff climbed into his elevator shoes? Okay one. But you get the point. Better: think of all the Hunchbacks, the Jekylls & Hydes and Phantoms of the Opera. In 1926, D.W. Griffith remade “The Sorrows of Satan”–just nine years after the original. There were three versions of “The Cat and the Canary” in fifteen years! But it’s not just horror films that get the rehash treatment. Edwin Porter’s smash hit “The Great Train Robbery” (1903) was remade the following year by some hack producer named Siegmund Leiben. “Stella Dallas,” directed by Henry King, was released in 1925. Twelve years later King Vidor gave us another one, this time with Babs Stanwyck and John Bowles (what a talent, that Bowles). Fast forward 50 years or so and yet another version, starring Bette Midler. Hitchcock remade one of his own films. It’s only a matter of time before another Star is Born. And who can forget Marty Feldman’s “The Last Remake of Beau Geste”? Strange that he was right. It WAS the last remake…
…for now! Hoohoo ha ha ha! Aaaaah ha ha ha ha!!! Ah ha ha…heh. Um.
First off: Welcome back John. I assume that the treatments at the sanitarium were fruitful? No more digging through the neighbors trash for half-empty bottles of brake fluid for you! Kudos!
I don’t know if there’s much to argue about – what you say is true. That’s certainly one of the reasons why I prefer writer-directors to the likes of even very good directors who don’t – or no longer – write their own material. A Writer-director may still rip-off a long standing plot or fall victim to cliches, but there’s more likely to be glimmers of originality there than in Sydney Pollack’s latest craptacular. It’s funny that Amityville Horror wasn’t much good in the first place, and yet is being re-made.
What about directors that keep re-making their own films? How many times can George Romero make his zombie film? Has he really not explored every aspect of this zombie thing YET? It’s like watching the 7th season of Gilligan’s Island; By now you should get it. Actually though, now that I think of it, I do wonder why no one has tried to make a zombie movie from the point of view of the zombies. I am renting Shaun of the Dead and reading Mel Brooks’ son Max’s Zombie survival Guide this weekend and will let you if any progress has been made on this front with those two.
PS – John Hughes is rumored to be making a sequal to 16 Candles. Ringwald, Ducky, and Boston Legal guy are all going to be in it. I’d go see it if Harry Dean Stanton is in it, still unemployed and drinking on the couch in the shack by the train-tracks. Such alcoholic depression reminds me of my days living in South Pasadena. (Sorry Bruns, I know you’re trying to stay sober. One day at a time brother.)
Hi Mark. It’s good to be back. Yes, the treatments went well. And the doctors said that the fantasies I was having about you, me, Laura Bush, and the cast of “Freaks” were completely normal. I presume, in your reference to Harry Dean Stanton, that you meant “Pretty in Pink.” Such a slip says less about the chiasma that is the personal vision of John Hughes than about your own “issues” with Paul Dooley. Come clean, Mark.
Long Duk Dong. Just wanted to type that in.
Speaking of recycling, I watched “Waydowntown†last evening, between bouts of grading, which came upon me like the ague. Luckily, the film was funny, often clever, even well-shot. I write about it mostly to offer up a flick maybe you hadn’t heard of that’s worth a look-see; hell, I don’t even know how I heard about it. And then a word or two about Canadian film.
The plot: Office workers, young, full of either ennui or vinegary idealism or both. The narrator–our hero–often slips into surreal flights of fancy. There’s a few flashy camera tricks. Despite all that, the film is funny, understated. My favorite bits involve one worker’s increasing claustrophobia, and her attempts to find refreshment through magazine cologne ads. (The central conceit, as much of a plot as there is, is a bet between 4 workers about staying inside the connected tunnels of the downtown area for as long as possible.) I’m hesitant to say too much–it’s pleasures are limited but worthy. One of those small independent films that actually seems to be independent of trends, hipster style, flashy attempts to break out of the indie ghetto. Instead, it’s pretty comfortable about being the slight, subtle, focused character study it is.
And this gets me to Canadian film. I actually took a course as an undergrad in Canadian film, and we circled ’round notions of how a national culture shapes a visual and narrative aesthetic…. and that’s the last time I ever heard about a Canadian cultural aesthetic outside of the Mackenzie brothers, Margaret Atwood sniping in some review, and Conan O’Brien poking fun.
But there does potentially seem like there’s a there there; “Waydowntown†had a supporting role by Don McKellar, who has apparently received a Canadian Film Board grant obligating all Canuck filmmakers (even the resentful Quebecois) to put him in the movie, and McKellar has made two great little films that I know of: “Highway 61″ and “Last Night.†The style of comedy isn’t as broad or incisive as SCTV… but it’s distinctively about three feet off-center, and it always takes me thirty minutes into one of his (or these) films to get the hang of the jokes.
I don’t know where I’m going here, except to ask: anyone got any great Canadian film suggestions? Anyone got any theses about Can. film? (I had/have one about Cronenberg’s horrific view of bodies disrupted from within as a sly metaphor about American culture, but my undergrad prof hated Cronenberg and constantly tried to get me to shut up.)
Denys Arcand, yeah yeah–sure. Bring him up too if you want. (And there’s this great Quebecois film I saw called “Pouvoir Intime†that was a great damn heist film, one of the finest I’ve seen–at least in my rosy memory–but I have never found it on vhs or dvd.)
Man..that is a long way for a lame joke. hats off to you!
damn, I missed the joke.
…I don’t have to read Reynold’s post again to try to find it do I?
parts of reynolds’ joke were appealing–especially the bit where he dragged it on too long–but on the whole i found it did nothing for me, in terms of either ethical or narrative pleasure. i think i much prefer the tedious jokes of his mentor bob saget, especially his brilliant work on the first season of “full house”. as i think about it though i think there was a lot in the second season that complicated the easy pleasures of the first.
The critics agree with you Arnab that Reynolds outlasted his welcome, and the best writing took place in the first couple of seasons. The addition of the Cousin Oliver-esque character of “Max” seemed to be pandering to a more wholesome family demographic. The early seasons – with the cabbage on the head, the bizarre turtleneck/t-shirt combinations, the alcoholic blackouts and trevails with women, were not only funnier, but they reeked of pathos. …booze and pathos…
Nice cousin Oliver joke. I always thought the editing was particularly fine for Reynolds, particularly as the show was likely to just end, abruptly, as he disappeared out the back door.