|
|
|
| THE
HACKNEY HERB’S FILM RANT |
|
 |
INDEX
The
intention of my writing is to offer my honest opinions of films, film
culture and current practice.
As
a highly opinionated, frustrated filmmaker, my writing may piss people
off.
I
may include reviews, or comment on filmmakers, actors, studio trends etc.
HOLLYWOOD
GOES RE-MAKE BANANAS
The
Great Ape King is returning.
As
Hollywood throws money into another re-make, King Kong being helmed
by Peter Jackson (the bearded one behind Lord of the Rings), it
seems wisdom has deserted the Studio execs.
The
question is, why?
It
seems that the remake is becoming an ever more popular vessel in
the Hollywood moneymaking fleet.
The
two main types of remake are, the remake of an old Hollywood movie
and the remake of a foreign film.
Both
have their pros and cons.
Some,
like “The Italian Job” (F Gary Gray, 2003) bare very
little resemblance to the original, just cashing in on the title
while at the other extreme films like “Psycho” (Gus
Van Saint, 1998) are shot for shot re-makes. |
|
 |
However
the general feeling is “remakes have generally been considered inferior
to the earlier versions, by film critics and cinema-goers alike”
(see here).
There
have of course been some notable exceptions to this e.g. The Maltese Falcon
(John Huston, 1941), however on the whole it would appear to be the case,
both in terms of critical acclaim and box office receipts that remakes
are inferior.
King
Kong is a good example of this last point, it has already been remade
(John Guillermin, 1976), “Dino DeLaurentis" is the big budget
version of Ed Wood.
He
took one of the classic films in history and in one fell swoop,
he destroyed it.” (see here).
So
why would anyone want to do it again?
The
original (1933) is a great movie watching it as a child 40 years
after it was made the movie had a very profound effect on me.
Fay
Wray becomes the object of Willis O’Brien’s apes affections
and they both enter movie history.
The
film was made at the height of the American Depression and as such
works on many levels both as a piece of escapism while at the same
time as an allegory for the monster gripping the nation.
The
final sequence is one of the richest in movie history, it has become
a part of wider culture, an iconic moment. |
|
 |
Even
if you haven’t seen it you must surely be aware of the scene as
Kong scales the then symbol of American wealth/greed - The Empire State
building to his doom.
There
is so much symbolism in this which although very contemporary it still
resonates today.
What
can Peter Jackson possibly add?
Film
is one of the few art forms, which allow its classics to be re-made,
music being the other main one.
No
one attempts to re-paint a Picasso, or re-write George Orwell.
So
why is it OK to re-make a piece of classic cinema?
There
are of course many possible arguments to justify this, that cinema
is often not an original source but adapts from others e.g. novels,
comic books, video games, even theme park rides.
However
these would usually be taken as an inspiration for an adaptation
into a new work of art.
It
can be argued that Hollywood remakes of European films, are translations
and trigger interest in the originals.
Which
is a sorry state of affairs really and only goes to underline Hollywood’s
dominance. |
|
 |
The
truth is that films are viewed more as a product than an art form and
as such treated less respectfully.
King
Kong is a classic, it stands on its own merits and doesn’t need
to be remade.
Would
you re-make Citizen Kane?
I
wonder how Mr Jackson would feel if someone 10 years down the line decides
to re-make Lord of The Rings?
Or
how would we all feel if someone announced they were intending to re-make
Star Wars?
<Indies
Day and the Temple of CG
Coolshoes
Reviews>
See
The Herb's MySpace>
The
Herb's PoWeb>
[Back
to Top]
©
2003 - 2008 Danny Herbert.
|
|
|
