I too used to rant and rave every time a foreign film I loved was slated to be remade by Hollywood. It even would upset me when they wanted to remake and serve up a modern interpretation of an older, "classic" Hollywood film! (It also irks me when great films are milked for sequels, films which usually have little in common with their predecessors-- but that is another post).
However, I don't allow myself to get fazed by it anymore, for several reasons:
1) It is a fact of life. Why get upset over something that you have no control over? Hollywood is in the business of making money, so the simple fact is that well-made international films will always attract their attention. It is more profitable and less of a risk to re-do an acclaimed foreign film than to develop an original film with unknown value. I certainly don't defend this practice, especially when you consider how many of the great original American films of decades past used to influence other directors around the world. It used to be the American films that got remade, with directors like Ford, Hawks, and Romero practically worshipped like gods on the world stage.
In light of this fact (and along with practices like having a 'focus panel' determine a film's ending), the state of originality and risk-taking in Hollywood is at a nadir. I'm simply saying there's no point kvetching about it, because it's probably not going to change anytime soon.
2) It is nothing new. This is not a recent phenomenon or some type of "new threat". It has been going on forever. The great Fritz Lang films of the 20's and 30's, many of the French New Wave films, a few of the Japanese and Italian classics. For example, I can't even count how many times Antonioni's great film Blow Up has been re-done in some fashion or another.
3) The remake is not always inferior. Sure, we can all quote many examples of the botch-job Hollywood has done on a great original film. Generally speaking, Hollywood's track record of remaking their own films is abysmal (think Psycho, Rollerball, The Day the Earth Stood Still, almost any film noir and detective movie from the 1940s, etc). But if I liked the original version of a specific foreign film, I will almost always watch the remake. First, because if I enjoyed a film in the first place I will enjoy watching it again, even a new version. Second, especially in a complex film where one can have various interpretations of the underlying themes, I'm often interested to see where the new film chooses to place emphasis, or how the different themes are elucidated. The same goes for character development. In the hands of a competent director this can be a very exciting thing. To use Antonioni's Blow Up again, Coppola's The Conversation, while not a frame-for-frame remake, is so brilliant it virtually surpasses its influential progenitor.
I will admit, though, in modern times very often the American version will tone down controversy or otherwise "neaten up" the material in foreign films. They will often tack on/change the ending in the usual Hollywood style (think of The Vanishing). I am of course not a fan of this.
4)
@didomusic
You said
Because if the remake is worse than the original, it gives the original a bad name.
While this
could be true, in practice it rarely occurs. For one thing, even film neophytes have an inkling that remakes are rarely better than the originals. I feel that most filmgoers subscribe to the cliched (but probably true) notion that "the book is always better than the film" and "the original is always better than the sequel".
But the real reason I don't worry about this is that I think it's really the converse that's actually true. The sad fact is that many excellent foreign films, many of which are additionally independent, don't get the viewership or attention they deserve (even sometimes in their own country). When Hollywood does a remake, even a mediocre one, it draws
necessary and vital attention to the original film, and sometimes to that director's entire body of work. This is a good thing for film in general. I am a virtual gormand when it comes to watching films from all over the world, and I like to think that very little escapes my attention, but even I have occasionally discovered a great film simply because an American remake has brought it to my attention.
I do not believe a remake will not hurt an original's reputation, unless perhaps the remake is a total abomination. But say what you will about Hollywood, the remake will probably be "competent" at the very least, especially if it is assigned a seasoned director and a proficient cast. So, in a worst case the original film/filmmaker would simply be ignored, not reviled (unless of course the original film was itself trash). This is really no different from musical covers by other artists (of which there are myriad examples of the remake being better than the original), or even the re-imaginings of concepts in fields like art, fashion, etc.
With respect to
The Secret in our Eyes specifically, I am not confident that the remake will bring any superior material to the table; this film is already a bona-fide masterpiece. But neither do I think a remake will do the original any harm. Again, if anything I think the critical press, which will mention the original film as a matter of routine, will give it some much-deserved attention (not that this particular film really needs it though-- it was an Oscar winner), and there are those who will watch the original just for comparison purposes.
All in all, there really is no reason to get bent out of shape over this sort of thing.
reply
share
cherubalways
14 years ago
Well, more often than not, remakes suck. But, who knows? It never hurts to try.
reply
share