Let's face it, now that Hollywood is almost irreparably bankrupt of ideas and creativity, almost anything is viable to be remade, even animated movies barely twenty five years old. I'm not alone in my utter disdain for these "re-tellings" or "re-imaginings" of films that puts capable writers out of work and instead decides to rehash stories, plots, songs, characters, and almost anything just to cash in on the current popularity of nostalgia. I'm not sure at the moment if this or the unnecessary sequel is worse, because I am reserving my judgement prior to the coming release of Beauty and the Beast this Spring, when I will give each of Disney's retellings the thorough thrashing they deserve, culminating in the reviews of one of the year's most anticipated films.
But before I go into this rant, I should talk about my personal opinions on remakes in general. Obviously, a creator has a right to alter or tweak their creations in any way they desire. Therefore, I will never deny Disney's right to make this film nor any of their other planned "re-imaginings" (though I will get into a few of their choices later on). And I personally can get on board with a remake of a classic film, provided your new version can accomplish two things: update the technology or art of movie making, or fix issues in the original film so that the new product is vastly superior to the original. And not all remakes are mediocre. Some people don't know that Cecil B. Demille actually made two versions of The Ten Commandments and that the one made in the 1950's with Charlton Heston was actually the remake of his 1920's silent movie version. The 1950's version of the film added color and sound to the religious epic and is a superior version in almost every way. Seeing as how it was difficult to get character out of just silent film projections, the remake added a ton of depth and character to the tale, especially in terms of the relationships between characters.
And I must stress the fact that just because two different studios make movies based off of the same property, it does not mean that the more modern film is a remake. For example, The Lord of the Rings trilogy is not a remake of the animated film made in the 1970's. Also, included in this could be re-tellings of Charlotte's Web, the origin stories of both Superman and Batman, or any of the hundreds of movie versions of Cinderella. But if the same studio has a hand in the remake of one of these films, it does count.
For my first point, updating the technology or art of movie making, the cases for all of the resurgent remakes is a significant mixed bag. Not all of my examples are going to be exact point for point remakes, but you can still see my point in the makings of these films. For instance, 2015's Jurassic World hoped to capitalize on the immense popularity of the Jurassic Park franchise with making a film with what appeared to be great effects in comparison to the original. And in that way, with a few exceptions, the film succeeded. However, the film suffered from a grotesque rehashing of the original film's plot (to be fair, that's what most JP films do anyway), which is almost as unavoidable as my next example, The Force Awakens. I'm not sure if it's because CGI in more recent films has become superior or not, but the effects and craftsmanship behind The Force Awakens was vastly superior to the effects used in the Prequel Trilogy, yet still cannot hold a candle to the handcrafted effects and camera shots of A New Hope. And yet, it's entirely impossible to ignore the incredible similarities to the film's plot with that of Episode IV (a droid joining forces with a desert planet roaming scavenger, while containing valuable information a villainous army seeks, while waging a war for control over the galaxy with a weapon with enough firepower to destroy a planet).
This point can continue with even earlier remakes of films back in the 1990's. The first remake of The Jungle Book that Disney worked on in 1994 was not a direct rehash of the original, but it's own take on the story of Mowgli. The animals did not speak and the plot was more of a mixture if Tarzan and Indiana Jones than a journey back to the Man Village. Shere Khan wasn't even the villain and was just a Tiger that everyone in the jungle respected. Khan even spares Mowgli and his love interest in the climax when he does battle with the hunter Buldeo. The Jungle Book: Mowgli's Story is another example of this, though far more similar in structure to the 1967 film than the 1994 one. It focused on Mowgli finding his place in the world while learning about the beauty and danger of being man in the jungle.
Not just The Jungle Book, though. In 1996, Disney remade 101 Dalmatians for a more modern audience and the results were on par with the original. But instead of retreading the original plot, it instead updated the character motivations and occupations, removed the necessity for the animals to talk and even got a stellar performance out of Glen Close as Cruella De Vil. It was different enough to be taken seriously as it's own film. Comparing these 1990's remakes to the blitzkrieg of coming reboots may seem unfair, but it needs to be done if we are to identify the most pressing issue with regards to this type of film. While both 2010's Alice in Wonderland and 2014's Maleficent can definitely be seen as their own films with minimal ties to their animated counterparts, the same cannot be said for 2015's Cinderella, 2016's The Jungle Book, or this year's Beauty and the Beast. All three of these films have constant callbacks to the original while offering little to nothing in return of anything new or substantial outside of the rare decent performance from an actor. Cinderella and Beauty and the Beast especially have this constant need to remind us of things that were vastly superior in the animated films. For example, the scene in the original 1950 film in which Anastasia and Drizella rip apart Cinderella's ball gown because it was made of spare sashes and bows, was one of the most gut wrenching scenes for any kid to watch and still unsettles me when I see it nowadays. Compare that to the new film, in which the dress is torn slightly by the stepsisters, but the filmmakers expect us to hold the same emotions after the action. It'd be like comparing a Goofy cartoon where he fell off a cliff to when Mufasa fell to his death at Scar's hands.
And this is where the second point comes in. If you cannot make a film superior to the original, what is the point of remaking it in the first place? If your entire motivation is money, then you shame what Hollywood is supposed to be about. If you literally have no idea how much damage you can do with one of these remakes, you should get out of film making ASAP. If you cannot fix issues such as Princess Aurora's virtually non-existent personality, the somewhat anti-feminist mentality of the original Cinderella, or cannot even reintroduce the chaotic nonsense of Wonderland properly, what is the point of making a film like this again? Or, for more of a future series of questions, what is the point of remaking a film like The Lion King if you are going to start bringing back members of the original cast to be in it like James Earl Jones? Why retell the story of Aladdin's quest to find the magic lamp, if you just wanted to use old tracks Robin Williams recorded in 1991 for your Genie (THANK THE LORD Williams will prohibits Disney from using his likeness in any new products until 25 years after his death). Or, the question that has bugged me for the last few weeks, why remake critically acclaimed films that are virtually a part of world culture, when you have films that get significantly less notoriety but have deep resourceful fanbases or lore to expand upon. Remember, aside from Star Wars and Fantastic Beasts (the former of which Disney owns), there are no other Fantasy Genre films coming out. It's all either remakes, cinematic universes, or horror movies. And when Disney still holds the rights to The Chronicles of Prydain, why not take another crack at working on something like The Black Cauldron?
But to think that studios are interested in trying anything untested is a detriment to your ability to critically think. Every single film studio is more interested in short term profits and less in what will help out longterm. And unless Hollywood get's the collective shit together, this problem will continue until the bubble of remakes and sequels bursts forever and a string of disasters strikes.
No comments:
Post a Comment