MovieChat Forums > The Beguiled (1971) Discussion > Why I despise today's Hollywood

Why I despise today's Hollywood

posted 9 years ago by felstein
10 replies | jump to latest

99% of what comes out of corporate-controlled Hollywood today is pure crap. Most of the time it is horrid franchise product, but there's also the remake factory that takes classics from the past and "updates" them for today's vapid, Kardashian-weaned audience. So it is with The Beguiled, a genuine classic from the New Hollywood period of the 70s, which the sausage factory has now selected to butcher.

Now, I'm not automatically against ALL remakes, but based on the casting of the new one, I can already see where it is headed. First, it's just a glamor-fest: Nicole Kidman, Kirsten Dunst, Elle Fanning. When I read those three names, I thought, "Who are they going to cast as McBurney, Chris Pratt??" SURE ENOUGH, one of the press releases said that the producers are looking for a "Chris Pratt type." Of course they're going to cast some thoroughly uninteresting pretty-boy, notable only for his abs, pecs, and designer stubble, and certainly not for talent. Name your zero: Pratt, Hemsworth, Worthington, Pine, or one yet to be discovered. Today's Hollywood is only about looks, not about talent. Geraldine Page and Elizabeth Hartman may not have been the most attractive actresses around (which means that they would never be cast in those parts today), but they looked absolutely right for their roles and their performances were flawless. In fact, every supporting performer, from Jo Ann Harris to Pamelyn Ferdin to Mae Mercer, was superbly cast and played. Even Eastwood, whose performance was not one of his best IMO, felt absolutely right in the role.

Since the new one is going to be a glamor-fest, I wonder if the fascinating psychological elements of the original will be simplified or dropped entirely in favor of lots of "hot" sex. I wonder if McBurney will be made less of a scoundrel because, in Hollywood today, beautiful people are not allowed to be bad. I'm sure things like kissing the 12 year old girl and killing the turtle will be completely unacceptable to today's audience, so they will be jettisoned.

Actually, I'm making myself angry just thinking about what they're going to do to the film. Better quit while I'm ahead.

[–] dolemite72 9 years ago

Totally agree....and unfortunately there's not many good actors around any more anyhow, should Hollywood even attempt to remake classics like this?

"If you're lying.....I'll be back"

[–] queenshan 9 years ago

To play devil's advocate here (while I cringe at the idea of remaking this unknown, quirky little gem), please consider the following before rushing to judgment:

1. Nicole Kidman in To Die For. Her performance was weird, cold-blooded and darkly funny.

2. Kirsten Dunst in Fargo (TV) Season Two. The same - it was really, really good and also humorous in a twisted way.

3. Elle Fanning in Super 8. I though she did a tremendous job.

As for the McB role, they should consider Channing Tatum. After seeing him in Foxcatcher, I think he could make it happen. MAYBE. He clearly doesn't take himself too seriously (re: This is the End).

I saw this film by accident, and just laughed and giggled and laughed. Even though the ending gave me a chill. What a ride! I do think that the tone of this film was uniquely 70s and it worked. I don't see how it can be modernized regardless of the cast and the director.

[–] felstein 9 years ago

queenshan,
I wasn't making a negative statement regarding Kidman's or Dunst's talent (I don't know enough about Fanning, and as for Chris Pratt, well...) I thought Kidman was extraordinary in The Hours and The Others and Eyes Wide Shut, and Dunst was wonderful in Eternal Sunshine and Dick. I was speaking only of their having been (mis-)cast in the new movie. Unlike Geraldine Page and Elizabeth Hartman, they don't look remotely like they could have stepped out of the 19th century -- Kidman, especially, with her cosmetically-altered face. Today's Hollywood has to cast "beautiful" people, regardless of whether they fit the role.
I absolutely agree with your last sentence.

[–] lnzbyl 8 years ago

Sofia Coppola is a talented director (as was her father, at least during the 1970s and, alas, occasionally during the 1980s), but it's hard to imagine anyone today who could do a job directing -well, forget better than- even as good as the amazing Don Siegel. I just finished watching the movie again for the first time in a long time, and I couldn't help but be struck by what a great job he did. The film was moody, and man did it move! The fact that he shot it in Louisiana helped with the atmosphere, of course, and the quality of the main performers certainly contributed to the greatness of the film. I just cannot imagine that any remake, regardless of who is cast in it, is going to be anywhere near as good as the original version.
One side note: Eastwood, in my opinion, deserves a lot of credit for playing a character that is not totally likable. I think some of the actors today wouldn't want the part just because of that.

[–] felstein 8 years ago

>> Eastwood, in my opinion, deserves a lot of credit for playing a
>> character that is not totally likable. I think some of the actors
>> today wouldn't want the part just because of that.

Right on the money! That's why, if the new film turns into the kind of big-budget glamor-fest it seems to be shaping up to be, I am sure the producers will eviscerate the moral ambiguity that made the original so compelling. The Beguiled was made during a time when Hollywood was not afraid of exploring the moral grey area in mainstream works. Name your 70s anti-hero: McBurney, Michael Corleone, Alex DeLarge, Travis Bickle, R.P. McMurphy, Kit Carruthers, not to mention Han Solo** -- some more good than bad, some more bad than good, but all impossible to classify in a black/white paradigm. And Eastwood was never afraid of exploring that moral grey area in his work, whether as an actor (The Beguiled, Dirty Harry, Tightrope) or as a director (Unforgiven, A Perfect World, Million Dollar Baby, Mystic River) -- although he, rather disappointingly, did a whitewash job on the real Chris Kyle in American Sniper (admittedly, being threatened by Kyle's father put him in a rather untenable position).

And finally... as talented as Sofia Coppola is, the artistic license that allowed her to make a film like Lost in Translation will be compromised by the producers in direct proportion to the budget. That's just the Hollywood of today.

** As an example of the kind of moral whitewashing that goes on now, I have three words: Greedo Shot First

[–] activista 8 years ago

Didn't know this was being remade, so here's some suggestions I thought of for the McB role---these are just suggestions,though----I doubt if any of them will be actually picked, even though some are big names:

Chris Evans---haven't seen any of his Captain America flicks, but I saw him in two indie films where he played some dark and edgy roles---THE ICEMAN,and SNOWPIERCER--so that's the only reason I thought of him.

Ben Foster---only saw him in two films, one of them being 30 DAYS OF NIGHT---he was the creepy bum that warned the town about the vampires---he seems to specialize in edgy, unlikable protagonists, so that's why he came to mind.

Possibly Tom Hardy, but he could do a role like this in his sleep---so could Idris Elba and Chiwetel Ejiofor,lol.

Also, Jack O'Connell would be a good choice---he can definitely do dark, edgy, scarily unpredictable characters, like in the recent MONEY MONSTER. Or joel Kinnaman or Matthias Schonert.

Also Joseph Gordon Levitt, Christian Bale, and maybe even Ryan Gosling---the first two would definitely kill it in that role, but Bale's already been in everything under the sun,and the other two would probably be too busy to consider the role anyway.

My last four,who are faves of mine---Keegan-Michael Key,who's just establishing himself as a lead in pictures, Oscar Isaac (who I would watch in dang near anything,'cause he's that good) and Jake Gyllenhaal, but he's another actor that's in everything,too---and Joel Edgerton. Like I said, just some thoughts. It would be cool if they went with an unknown or just-coming-up actor, but I doubt it---they'll go for the big names,regardless.

[–] felstein 8 years ago

Interesting choices. I'm a big fan of Ben Foster -- I think he's one of the best actors working today. But, as you say, none of these will probably be considered. Since the producers said they were looking for a "Chris Pratt type" I am sure the only requirement for the role is that the guy have the required ingredients: super-toned abs & pecs, no chest hair, facial stubble that never gets shaved, etc. Acting ability will not play into the equation at all.

[–] sleepingtiger (712) 8 years ago

They picked Colin Farrell, whom I've also seen play some dark, morally questionable characters, so at least they got an actor who would be challenging enough for the role.

[–] pedroburbankado 8 years ago

Nicole Kidman was great in Birthday Girl

[–] missy (174) 7 years ago

I haven't seen the new version and, after seeing the original, am pretty sure I don't want to see it. I imagine it as a politically correct blandness; hope I am wrong.

Ugh, maybe not wrong -- just ran across some headlines like "Sofia Coppola's whitewashed new movie The Beguiled" -- doesn't sound promising.