Why remakes exist and why they don't really matter

With the release of The Amazing Spiderman, as one of the many films being re-made and coming to a cinema screen near you, the debate about remakes has resurfaced. Is it a good thing? Is it a bad thing? Why are the studios doing this? This last question is probably the easiest one to answer and it all starts with one event. That event was the Hollywood writers strike of mid 2007/early 2008.

Unable to put pen to paper, or digits to keyboards, the writers couldn't scribe (or at least weren't allowed to submit) new material and so the studios had to look elsewhere for their output at that time and the remake was thing to go for. Therefore if the script already existed, it was a quick and easy money maker and it kept the production lots turning over. The studio's saw that they could profit from this and so the trend went upwards.

So is it a good thing or was it a bad thing? Some remakes do improve on the original: Ocean's Eleven was very decent film, considering that original one starring Frank Sinatra and the Rat Pack was an appalling vanity project and Michael Mann's Heat was a high class remake of his very own made-for-TV LA Takedown and lets not forget the remake of True Grit which was more faithful to the book that it was based on than the John Wayne original. Remakes of classic literary pieces don't really count as these stories can be retold over and over again to new generations of film audiences. There's nothing wrong with the fact that there are upteen versions of The Three Musketeers (unless you count the most recent one which was travesty) and A Christmas Carol. The stories that these films portray, like the written works that they were based on, are timeless.

The key word here is timeless. Film versions of literary classics can be retold and reworked over and and over because the source material meant something at the time and the message in the story likely still holds true today. The modern remake is problematic because most of the time, the background of the original, the reason for it's existence in the first place, cannot be translated into the present day. Take The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Nightmare on Elm Street, both are classic slasher movies of their day, both had something to say about the respective era that they were made or set in. Texas Chainsaw Massacre had things to say about the naivety of America at that time in the mid-1970 and the struggle to come to terms with the harsh realities with which the country was being presented. Nightmare on Elm Street dealt with themes of the consequences of immorality and excess. You watch the remakes and you see a film stripped of the naunces that made the originals so compelling, so strongly analysed. All you have now is a hideous man dispatching disposable teens in gruesome ways. Robocop is being remade and given that the original was satire on creeping corporatism into everyday life, what will the remake have to say now that those times are more or less upon us? It could be a fly on the wall documentary. Call it short-sightedness. Call it cynicism. Call it playing it safe.

Hollywood, in general, doesn't like to take risks. When original films do appear it's like an epiphany. One director who proves you can take a risk, make an intelligent, thought provoking and financially successful film is Christopher Nolan. Inception was an incredibly successful film, whose depth and creativity had audiences and critic alike talking about it for months. Nolan though is an expection. He does have something of a Midas touch with films such as Memento, the somewhat underrated The Prestige and of course his Batman franchise which gave the comic book hero (Batman's not a superhero as he has no powers) a depth and narrative that was not seen before in that type of movie and frankly set the benchmark for future productions in its genre. The age of the auteur has passed. Where the late 60's and 70's had the Scorcese's, Peckinpah's and Coppola's, we now have the Snyders and McG's who make 2 hour pop video's. Powder puff presentations of powder puff world. Lots to show, but nothing to say.

Hollywood is lazy. It is far easier to regurgitate a film from the past, particularly one that did well the first time round, give it a new sheen and put it out there, than it is to take a risk on a new idea. If you doubt this assertion and going back to the writers strike, just take a look at all the films that were in development before the writers strike hit. Granted, some of those on the list did see the light of day eventually, take Sherlock Holmes, Seven Pounds, The A-Team at a glance. However, there are a great deal on there that have yet to surface (although some are in some phase of production), but it's been five years, so where are they? While these films languish in development hell, remakes abound. Not to mention torrid sequels, reboots and big screen versions of supposed TV classics that nobody asked for, but that's another story.

It's not all doom and gloom though. There is light at the end of the tunnel. Good, original films are still being made. Unfortunately, the key to the whole industry is distribution: getting as wide a circulation for your film as possible. The indie movement in the 1990's fizzled out somewhat, as the directors of those films got swept into the mainstream. Quentin Tarantino and Doug Liman are two examples. But another cycle is gaining momentum. Thanks to festivals such as Sundance getting more exposure than ever, film makers can make a name for themselves, get themselves noticed and as has been proven with those directors who set out their stalls in the 70's and gave us many enduring classics, these new film makers will be able to gather a larger audience and go on to greater things.

It makes you wonder whether it's not the Hollywood system that's in control after all, that's pushing in one direction, but rather those film makers that want to get out there, that want you to see their film and they are films that you will want to see.

So to end on a philosophical note: like most things in life, the film industry goes in cycles. Remake are neither bad nor good, they just are. They serve a purpose, but are not the overriding factor in the industry. 

 There is hope.

Review: The Amazing Spiderman

Synopsis: Whilst rooting around his Aunt May (Sally Fields) and Uncle Ben's (Martin Sheen) basement, Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) comes across his father's old records, which leads him to get in contact with his Parker Snr's old partner, Dr Curt Connors.

Christopher Nolan's Batman franchise has a lot to answer for. Nolan's art house sensibilities took the superhero down a more introspective and somewhat darker road than had previously been ventured. The comic book adaptation had grown up and in Hollywood, where one leads others invariably try to follow. So the rulebook was re-written and with each big screen superpowered incarnation came a neuroses, a character flaw that said “Hey, I may have otherworldly abilities, but I'm still a man (superheroes are still a predominantly male concern on screen), I still have thoughts, feelings and insecurities like the rest of you”: Batman dealing with the loss of his parents; Iron Man dealing with his ego; Captain American, a man out of time, even the Green Lantern movie tried to address father issues.

It's not an accident that the Spiderman reboot delves into the character's inner most thoughts: darker, more brooding, more introspective. With Spiderman 3 being only 5 years old, quite a short time in cinematic terms, Spiderman version 2.0 comparisons with the Sam Raimi franchise are inescapable. The cobwebs (pun intended) have yet to settle.

Raimi's take on the old web slinger was bright, breezy fun. Peter Parker carried out his city swinging antics in the daytime, the majority of action in Spiderman version 2.0 takes place at night (be advised that watching this film in 3D, taking into consideration the 40% light loss that the glasses give you, you may as well watch it with your eyes closed). The soundtrack to Raimi's Spiderman was MOR rock, provided by the likes of Chad Kroeger and Aerosmith, in one of version 2.0's biggest missteps, in the inevitable scene which shows our hero jumping, swinging and bouncing, with his newly aquired powers, around his own industrial playground, the film makers plump for Coldplay and not light breezy, big sound Coldplay, but acoustic guitar shoe gazing Coldplay. The orchestral soundtrack is noticably different as well. Gone are the playful, airy violins and choruses that punctuated the classic Danny Elfman score, to be replaced with James Horner's more epic full blooded score. There are scenes of high emotion (outside of the one that leads our character to don the red and blue spandex costume), something that the Raimi's version eschewed, in favour of the action sequences that saw Spidey get seriously punished and by high emotion, we're talking about a good deal of crying and moping from the lead character. Having a superhero that is emotionally connected is one thing, having a superhero who gets stroppy is another. Raimi tried this with Spiderman 3 and we ended up watching an emo Peter Parker act like a bit of an arse, Raimi's Spiderman, as one would have expected from the man who brought you the Evil Dead series was in your face, version 2.0 is teeming with symbolism.

This leads us onto the film's biggest problem and it is a big problem. Now, whether the studio overtly chose to distance itself as far as it could by differentiating itself from the previous franchise or whether director Marc Webb's hand (having previously directed 500 Days of Summer), it's hard to say, but what we do have is a lot of talk and not much action. After all, we want to see Spiderman swinging through the streets of Manhattan, not arguing with his adopted parents. It's probably to be expected that in a post Nolan Batman world, we get to see a lot of the man before we get to Spiderman, but if the character and plot set up of the first act here flows quite nicely, the second act is slow, baggy and meandering. There's a dinner scene with Gwen Stacey's family, which just like the relationship between the two pops up out of nowhere and seems utterly pointless. The amazing thing about this Amazing Spiderman screening was the number of people who got up to go to the toilet half way through. The lack of anything going on in middle of the film was palpable.

It should be pointed out that none this is the fault of the actors. Andrew Garfield, who does awkward and gawky rather well brings a new dimension to the role. Whilst, Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker was a bit of a loser and a bit of a social outcast (or at least Hollywood's archytypal version of one), Garfield's take is intelligent, brave and more self-confident. Emma Stone plays the role of Gwen Stacey, the way that Emma Stone plays almost all her role: smart, sassy and confident (this is a very good thing, by the way) and the real life chemistry between the couple (despite the mumblecore-ish exchanges of dialogue) is clear to see on the big screen. The golden nugget here though, is Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben. Sheen's character is the glue that holds the otherwise rambling storyline together and you genuinely feel it whenever he's not on screen. He seems to not only be Peter Parker's anchor, offering him guidance and wisdom, but the audiences' anchor as well. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for Sally Fields' Aunt May, who gets very little to do other than mope and frown. Rhys Ifans gets the worst of it though, his Curt Connors is a mixed up character who we never know whether is good or bad, sane or mad and when we do finally get to big confrontation in the third act, his Lizard alter ego is a fairly weak bad guy who doesn't get much to do other tear things apart, roar and be angry. He's certainly not on the levels of Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin or better yet, Alfred Molina's Doc Octopus. This could be down to rumoured editing of the film that re-hashed the original cut into something that never quite adds up and leaves you with more questions than answers, in more than one area. For instance, it's a hell of a thing when a character (Denis Leary, as Gwen Stacey's father and police captain) who would otherwise be incidental, is given so much screen time.

It is a difficult film to like, but despite the inconsistent pacing and the not so well rounded characters, the film is enjoyable. There is humour in both the dialogue, albeit a little on dry side and some of the action scenes and some of the set pieces (when we eventually get around to them) are amazingly well done. The cast are top notch, all clearly relishing their respective roles and if this is simply a set up for the sequel's then Spiderman going dark is certainly the way forward. Let's just hope that next time the studio can inject some of the magic that made Sam Raimi's franchise a little more fun to bear.

Rating: 6/10