We don't want to beat a dead horse here — well, maybe we do, but we don't want buckets of blood poured on us by PETA — but we have to reemphasize the importance of novelty in Hollywood one more time. Movie execs are in a constant struggle to provide viewers with new and exciting plots, settings and cinematography. At the same time, each year brings its fair share of remakes. The art of the remake is difficult to master, but the idea behind it is quite simple: If a movie did well before, who is to say it won't do well again?
The other day we almost gouged out our eyes, Oedipus−style. During one of the many "Shutter Island" press junkets, director Martin Scorsese mentioned the possibility of teaming up with Mr. I−Hate−Female−Sexuality himself, Lars von Trier of "Antichrist" (2009) fame, to remake Scorsese's masterpiece "Taxi Driver" (1976). We're not sure what we're more disgusted with — the genital mutilation in "Antichrist" or the possibility of a "Taxi Driver" remake.
Last year's box office was flooded with remakes as everything from 1974's "The Taking of Pelham 123" to "A Christmas Carol" got a makeover. Yet both of these movies were duds, even though the Book of Denzel holds that "Denzel shalt not make a bad film, only mediocre ones on occasion, in order to balance out his usual awesomeness" (Denzel 3:16:28).
We believe that the remake films of last year underperformed because they were boring. They did nothing to differentiate themselves from the originals and were thus unfavorably compared to their source materials.
Take a look back at some of the most successful remakes ever made. "The Italian Job" (2003), for example, was based on a British film of the same name from 1969. So, what did this remake do to distinguish itself from the critically acclaimed original? And why do we keep asking rhetorical questions? Well, the film put a modern spin on the story, employing intense car chases in Mini Coopers and adding in the demolitions expert Left Ear (Mos Def) and the computer genius Lyle (Seth Green) to bring character and comedy to the film. Fans fell in love with the remake because it held true to the original's courageous−caper feel while featuring modified action. Plus, Edward Norton with a perv−stache and a bad boy attitude makes for a villain we all love to hate.
If you're going to remake a movie, please at least make it different enough from the original. Think of Brian De Palma's "Scarface" (1983). This blood−soaked epic serves as a critique of the excesses of the cocaine−laced '80s, making many people totally unaware of the comparatively tame 1932 version. De Palma succeeded — both critically and financially — because he had a distinct vision for his film. We probably won't be able to say the same thing about the upcoming "A Nightmare on Elm Street." Other than the mildly inspired casting of Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy Krueger, this film seems totally unwarranted and unwanted.
Next week's "Alice in Wonderland" is half remake, half sequel, zero percent squeakquel. Director Tim Burton was smart enough to realize that the world doesn't want yet another retelling of the original story. After all, nothing can top the 1951 animated classic. This film takes place about 10 years after Alice's first trip down the rabbit hole and should appeal to Disney lovers and stoners alike.
Most remakes are the cinematic equivalent of plastic wrap. They are thin and flimsy, and they stifle the genius of the original work. And you should never give them to children under five for risk of accidental self−strangulation.
--
Zach Drucker is a sophomore majoring in International Relations, and Chris Poldoian is a sophomore who has not yet declared a major. They can be reached at Zachary.Drucker@tufts. edu and Christopher.Poldoian@tufts.edu.
