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.