This Guardian article details the long-standing phenomenom of DIY filmmaking -- seen in 8mm recreations of classic films or, as the article primarily focuses on, the "Sweding" seen in the upcoming film, Be Kind Rewind, sweding being the process of remaking a classic blockbuster through barebones methods. What I found most interesting in the article was how DIY films have become almost a genre in themselves, with certain semantic expectations -- low-quality, innovative replacements for expensive special effects, laughable plots, etc. Especially now, in the YouTube era, I find it intriguing how common it is for budding filmmakers to create and display their own takes on classics new and old, and how, as audiences, we come to expect these knock-off versions of classics, whether in these YouTube videos or in DTV knock-offs like Transmorphers or I Am Omega.
This article also speaks to the current, disappointing trend of Hollywood remakes, themselves a form of DIY filmmaking, taking the work and adding an American flair to it, usually at the detriment to the original story or plot. I think that remakes, especially Japanese horror remakes, have become a genre in their own, their most recognizable component their lackluster quality (see The Grudge 2, The Ring Two, The Eye, One Missed Call, Pulse, etc. etc. etc.). I most enjoy the part of the article that says that, at the end of the day, what is important is to make your own work, which I think is good advice for producers inclined to spit out remake after remake, with no concern for quality. Perhaps making an original work could net better results.
Here's the article:
http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,2254059,00.html
5 comments:
Yes, remakes will always be around because they require no originality and are cheaper and faster to put into production. Also studio heads like to pick remakes because they can bank on the previous success of the original, whereas new material has no proven marketability or viability, thus they are taking a financial risk putting it out.
Comment 1 from me. The Guardian article itself is really interesting and worth reading. What's the difference between sweding and a band doing covers of songs? I think the key here is that this really is fan fiction, at least as used in the piece. Studio remakes are a different subject, but remaking The Exorcist as a three minute short starring bunnies is kind if brilliant. It is a genre, just like slash fiction is -- there's a specific community that does it, and aren't all early amateur super 8 films remakes/swipes, etc. anyway? That's how we learn. (Again I'm talking amateur non-studio product that doesn't tie up actual studio money which should be used for the real stuff)
Comment 2 from me. Jose is right when he says "remakes will always be around ..." And they always have been ; it's not anything new. The much loved An Affair to Remember (1957) (so celebrated in Sleepless in Seattle) was a remake of A love Affair (1939). There have been four versions of A Star is Born, four versions of Invasion of the Body Snatchers and so forth. Isn't there room for multiple interpretations of Dracula or should we have stopped with Lugosi.
Why is it okay to remake a novel into film, i.e. an adaptation, but not a film into a film? Again isn't it okay to have more than one version of Henry V?
With that said, I groan and bitch every time I read that they're remaking a film I love [see 3:10 to Yuma -- by which I mean don't bother]. Their should be sacred cows, i.e. Casablanca, The Searchers, Wizard of Oz, Citizen Kane -- films so perfectly realized that they should not be remade -- Was Vince Vaughn's Norman Bates needed -- No. But who gets to decide. If it was me, I would have nixed Jackson's King Kong, but it turned out okay and most people would rather watch it than the original. So who gets to be the remake judge?
And finally -- remakes of foreign films. Yes, it's really hard to translate what works in Asian horror over to American film. Ring wasn't bad -- but most have been. But look what Leone did in Italy with American Westerns -- and don't forget that A fistful of Dollars is a shot by shot remake of Yojimbo.
I agree that remakes can be treated a a separate genre. Like all genre, most of it is crap, while some of it is brilliant. That's the first rule of GENRE.
Finally, for those interested in this subject, there's a very good anthology on the subject, available in the library, called "Play It Again, Sam: Retakes on Remakes"
This reminds me of a hilarious two minute Youtube film I watched on Citizen Kane, portraying him as a "pimp" in an edgy rap song. I remember a user comment that said something like "if the actual movie were like this, I wouldn't have fallen asleep in class watching it!" So, maybe there is something to be said for updated versions of movies. More of my friends have seen the (arguably worse version of) The Manchurian Candidate with Denzel Washington and Meryl Streep than the original starring Frank Sinatra and Angela Lansbury. Is it better to have at least seen a remade version of a classic film, albeit it a watered-down attempt? Maybe. Save the absolute timeless classics like Wizard of Oz (which still entertains a five-year-old today just as much as in 1939), I have to disagree with Jim and support the remakes of films -- like Kane and Casablanca -- since the average film-goer will most likely pass on renting such classics… but would see the new version with Angelina, Brad, etc.
Margaret's disagreeing with me, but I think we're actually in agreement in all but what the sacred cows are. There's probably a dozen or so U.S. films that don't seem to need remaking, but I would think most others would be fair game. In most cases in which I think a remake is silly it's because of the star turn -- Brando's On the Waterfront, Bogart's Casablanca, Nicholson's Cuckoo's Nest, Hoffman's The Graduate, Davis' All About Eve, etc. If you're going to remake it, I'd rather see a different format -- like a TV mini-series expanding the story line, etc. I also think remaking Hitchcock is a loser's proposition. It's not even necessarily about quality -- it's about icon status.
Post a Comment