In spite of generally positive notices, I'll be passing on the updated Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
The wife is excited by this offering, but I've taken an unfashionable moral stand by refusing to patronize remakes of well-made films.
For example:
My zombie-loving friends rave about the Dawn of the Dead remake, but what's in it for me?
The original worked not only on the splatterrific grand guiginol MORE BRAINS level, but also as a weathervane highlighting the sociopolitical drift of America.
When a film is a milestone, what value is there in remaking it?
What has changed about America, or about cinema, that calls for such a reexamination?
"I can sell it to the suits" is not a battle cry calculated to stir the blood of moviegoers, regardless of its galvanic effect on those working in the industry.
Don't get me wrong, I like Johnny Depp.
He's one of the few "movie stars" around who has a knack for balancing solid commercial entertainment like Pirates of the Caribbean with interesting smaller films. He likes working with Burton and they've made some good movies in the past.
I can see what drew Burton to the project- it's a perfect fit for the disassociative design-obsessed aesthetic he wears like a trenchcoat on a hot summer day. When he's engaged in a project his relentless creativity and eye for detail can be very effective, as I'm sure they are here (when he's not the result is a vile collapsed souffle like Planet of the Apes)
Still, I'm left with the eternal "why?"
Remaking a classic film is like rebuilding the Empire State Building to scale using popsicle sticks instead of concrete.
Cute idea..........but so what?
7 comments:
An analogy might be found in music that could answer your "so what" question - I mean the case of louie louie. There are many different versions of it - some are good and some suck. Just as covers of songs re-use great melodies and lyrics, remakes of classic films allow for re-interperetations of great cinema. True most re-makes suck ass but that doesnt do away with the value of attempting a new presentation of something... Another example could be West Side Story - why re-do romeo and juliet? Because new retellings _might_ be good too- that said im not too hopefull about the new wonka.
Ill prolly see it tho
- gordito
I don't mind remakes of mediocre or bad things, and in music particularly there is a long and storied history of 'covering' tunes for various reasons.
But a movie is a different thing entirely....the sheer mass of the undertaking means that the motivation has to be more than just "hey, I like this song, I think I'll take a day or two and record MY version of it".
It really is like making a building- millions of dollars, months of effort by hundreds of people, huge amounts spent on advertising.
All in the service of doing something that was already done properly.
It bemuses me.
Gene Wilder had the creepy pathos factor the Johnnie just-wince-does not. that photo on your page of Wilder jsut about breaks my heart, his baby blues so unclouded in the midst of bedlam, that's what I love him for. And, Baxie, baby, I'm a fan of Depp. But I don't trust beautiful people that far, to be honest.
Why? Because they can silly. And the fact that ALL of the original ideas have been used up in Hollywood. As for zombies, I very much enjoyed the british take (Shaun of the Dead not 28 days later). I reject the idea that Depps Wonka is not influenced by the real life weirdness of m. Jackson. But come on its Gilbert!
I also refuse to watch any movie series that has more than two sequels. Exceptions being Star Wars and Barely Legal.
ok, barely legal I can see...but STAR WARS?!?!
someone should remake the star wars madness with depp as jar jar.
-gordito
Post a Comment