DB7

Given the recent spate of remakes of classic British films including Get Carter, The Ladykillers, Alfie and The Italian Job we pose the following questions:

DB7

For your consideration I offer up 3 versions of Russell Thorndike's novel:

Dr. Syn (George Arliss 1937 version)
Captain Clegg (Hammer's 1962 film)
Dr. Syn - Alias the Scarecrow (Disney's 1963 film)

Would anybody say the 2 later versions should be wiped from existence?

daisymum

Grudgingly, I voted for option no. 3 (that a remake can be revived to take advantage of a modern situation or setting) because some stories are timeless and have relevance to a modern audience either to do homage to a story or film or key personnel involved in making a film, PROVIDED IT'S DONE RIGHT. (James Mason does a great job in the remake of A Star Is Born, for example.) The only thing is that there seems to be a dearth of new ideas as of late, and the powers that be are churning out old material by rehashing (and in the process, butchering) classic films and television. I haven't decided whether this is due to arrogance, greed, lack of inspiration (or talent), or some drug-fueled delusions of grandeur. (Although my money's on a combination of all of the above.)

I wonder, though, if some of the decline in quality in the film & televsion industry is a by-product of the medium. Classic television writers either got their start in radio or were heavily influenced by radio performances, where the writing _had_ to be good in order to invoke the listeners' imagination & get them to tune in again next week. The same goes for film where the performers came from vaudeville or the legitimate theatre where the performances were more "seasoned" (for lack of a better word) from actors having to appear in several shows a day, every day. I also think that those involved in the classic films & television simply had more life experience. For example, they fought Nazis, flew planes, sailed the seven seas, what have you, whereas most tv writers today have pretty much gone to school and written for television.

Anyway, this was a theory some friends & I came up with the other night while downing the remants of a bottle of hangover-inducing...something that I'm too embarrased to admit to drinking. Let's just say that it made sense at the time. wink

DB7

My personal view is that classic films are best avoided because the original film hit the nail on the head. But why not those that were flawed, underdeveloped or suffered due to budget restrictions. Some like Ocean's 11 and Bedazzled were far from perfect originally so why not try and re-film it? In the case of Ocean's 11 the remake was a slick heist movie that improved on the Rat Pack vehicle but the Fraser/Hurley Bedazzled was hindered by the same casting faults as the original.

Gibbie

DB7,

You've made a good point. I am very against remakes of classics, but there are many flawed originals, which may be better the second time around, but I'm not quick to say redo everything.

Gibbie

MissGossage

Personally, I'm giving Neil LaBute's planned remake of The Wicker Man the benefit of the doubt until I've actually seen it.

The original, while certainly interesting, is now massively overrated thanks to its "lost classic" status, and LaBute is by any standard you care to name a more accomplished director than Robin Hardy - and also a playwright who has produced at least as much distinguished work as Anthony Shaffer had done by the same age.

More to the point, LaBute comes from a religious (Mormon) background, which he eventually broke away from - and this suggests that at the very least he'll be adding a strong personal angle. Of course, it might be terrible - but the omens look better than they did for Get Carter or Alfie.

DB7

Having seen a post from one of the screenwriters I doubt this'll get off the ground, and if it does it'll be an unmitigated disaster. Last I heard they were looking to shoot on the Isle of Man.

Given the the poor showing of the recent remakes my guess would be the backers will get cold feet.

MissGossage

I thought LaBute was the only writer attached to to the project?

Anyway, shooting in the Isle of Man tells you nothing, except that its producers are taking advantage of its film-friendly tax regime. Which in turn suggests that it's a rather more independent production than the glossy Hollywood remakes of Get Carter, The Italian Job and Alfie, which can also be a positive sign, at least from a creative angle.

As for whether it's a disaster or not, I'm quite happy to give it the benefit of the doubt until I have good cause to think otherwise. LaBute is a talented and original film-maker, and if you restrict your comments about remakes purely to ones also made by talented and original film-makers, the success rate is suddenly that much greater (granted, The Ladykillers was a misfire, but at least it wasn't a slavish copy).

In fact, it's quite intriguing to look at the recent output of Steven Soderbergh, as he's a friend of LaBute's - both Traffic and Solaris were at least distinctive enough to stand apart from the originals, and his Ocean's 11 was arguably superior to the first.

DB7

He was asked to pad out the script and give his opinion on the failings of the original. But despite having a recent Hollywood horror remake to his name both sides were singing from a different hymn sheets and his view was that the script was historically flawed - probably jumping a 200 year gap from European Paganism to New England heretics. There's also apparently some salacious scenes involving the Ekland and Pitt characters that put it in Polanski territory.

DB7

Ocean's 11 was ok as a throwaway heist film with practically no character development (and less humour than the Rat Pack) but Solaris.. oh dear. That must have been one of 2002's turkey's.

Right now I can see the career paths of Soderbergh and the Coen's following a similar trajectory into blandness. It's the curse of Clooney wink

The_Late_Peter_Cook

I'd disagree greatly about Bedazzled being 'flawed' or 'underdeveloped' purely on the selfish reason that it's one of my favourite movies and that it touches me in a way that many other films do not and therefore is as much of a 'classic', as, say The Ladykillers.

I agree that in cases like Ocean's 11 an insignificant movie can get a better interpretation, but the problem is that a lot of the movies chosen are ones that are hard to better, especially when the talents are inferior, there is not a director alive who is, for example, as great as Hitchcock, certainly not the anoymous hacks who directed versions of Rear Window, Shadow Of A Doubt or Notorous, while the least said about the remake of Laughton's Night Of The Hunter, the better. frown

Rob Compton

Hopefully you'll manage to see the 1937 Dr Syn soon, Tony. I enjoyed it, after making allowances for it's vintage, so I sincerely hope you will too. :)

rgds
Rob

Marky B

A few years ago,Mel Gibson announced he was to do a remake of The Dambusters,with himself playing his namesake Guy Gibson and a possibility of Liam Neeson playing Sir Barnes Wallis. Although it never materialised,it would have been interesting to know if they would have kept the original score by Eric Coates.
However,at the time,some wag suggested Denzel Washington would play Gibson,and he would have a dog called Whitey
Ta Ta
Marky B thumbs_u

I once shot an elephant in my pyjamas - how he got in my pyjamas,I'll never know