On August 21, Quentin Tarantino’s seventh film, Inglorious Basterds, will be released. This move is loosely based off of a lesser known 1978 Italian film called Quel Maledetto Treno Blindato, that was released in the United States as The Inglorious Bastards. Tarantino claims that his movie is not a remake. Having seen neither move, I’ll take his word for it. When Rob Zombie remade John Carpenter’s 1978 classic, Halloween, Carpenter apparently encouraged Zombie to make the film his own. Zombie decided to add a more detailed backstory to the character of Michael Myers. I did see both John Carpenter and Rob Zombie’s versions of Halloween and firmly believe that the two movie are different enough. The problem for me is that when it comes to slasher movies, I typically feel indifferent leaving the theater.
I think the real reason I mention Inglorious Basterds and Halloween is out of concern. Earlier this year, we saw a reboot of the Friday the 13th franchise, and remakes of Escape from New York and Evil Dead are also supposedly in the works, not to mention Zombie’s Halloween 2 will also be released the weekend after Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds. In the case of Escape from New York, John Carpenter has hinted that the remake might get a treatment similar to the one given to Halloween by Rob Zombie. The idea is that the movie will be a remake, with a bit of prequel thrown in for good measure. The Evil Dead remake, which will be directed by Sam Raimi and produced by both Raimi and Bruce Campbell, will apparently not include Campbell’s Ash character.
So you may be wondering what my concern is, and I suppose it is partially that Hollywood is running out of ideas. This fear has been echoed by critics since the 1990s, who began to get a little nervous when every summer they saw old television shows like The Flintstones, Starsky and Hutch, The Brady Bunch, and even McHale’s Navy warmed over and made into a hopeful Hollywood blockbuster. Currently there is a new Three Stooges movie (not biopic) in the works directed by the Farrelly Brothers and starring Benicio del Toro as Moe, Paul Giamatti as Larry (who is replacing Sean Penn), and Jim Carrey as Curly. All I am left to wonder is what dirt the Farrelly Brothers have on these actors that could have possibly made them agree to appear in this movie. Hollywood’s lack of originality is not the only think that concerns me in this matter. Truthfully, as long as there are directors like Sophia Copolla, Sam Mendes, Christopher Nolan, Guillermo del Toro, Spike Jonze, and Michel Gondry, as well as writers like Charlie Kauffman, I think we will be pretty safe. I suppose what truly concerns me is more personal.
When Warren Beatty and Annette Benning did their remake of Love Affair in 1994, there was 38 years separating that movie from 1957’s An Affair to Remember and 55 years separating it from the 1939 original. There was also 38 years separating Gus Van Sant’s shot for shot 1998 remake of Psycho from Alfred Hitchcock’s 1960 original. And in 1995, when Sidney Pollack had the horrible idea of remaking Sabrina with Harrison Ford, there was 41 years separating it from Bogie’s 1954 original. The point I’m trying to make is that a lot more time had passed between the remakes that came out in the 90s and the remakes that come out today. Being apart of a much more pop culturally aware generation, seeing new versions of Friday the 13th, Halloween, Escape From New York, and Evil Dead makes me feel...well... old.
I suppose I should be worried about what these remakes say about our current generation as well. Even if the remakes of Love Affair, Psycho, and Sabrina failed miserably, they were still pointing back to much more brilliant source material. While I’m sure Tarantino will at least have an interesting perspective with Inglorious Basterds, what is most refreshing is that he is at leastthere is something to be said for the fact that he is not remaking a slasher movie or popcorn action flick (with no insult intended to the Evil Dead franchise). Maybe I’m just taking these films as if they are the standard, and if so I would definitely be wrong for that. In the last ten years, we have seen very interesting and original movies like American Beauty, Lost in Translation, I ♡ Huckabees, The Darjeeling Limited, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. While these movies may not make the money of a Hollywood summer blockbuster, they, rather than say The Fast and The Furious, are what will be remembered in university film courses when looking at the films of the 00’s. Even reboots haven’t been an entirely bad thing. Look at Daniel Craig’s tenure as James Bond or Christopher Nolan’s Batman franchise. Now we are even seeing things happen like Harrison Ford passing the Indiana Jones fedora down to Shia LeBeouf, and there are also talks of a ceremonial passing of the torch to a new group of Ghostbusters. So perhaps my critique of the current state of movies is a bit too hasty. I could talk about how Tim Burton ruined Planet of the Apes, but that wouldn’t be entirely fair. Hell, I’ve recently gotten to the point where I like his version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, better than Gene Wilder’s.
My grandparents often complained that they don’t make movies like they used to, and in some ways they are right. A great movie should be timeless and should be able to speak to any generation. With that in mind, American Beauty and Lost in Translation will always be closer to me than Citizen Kane or Casablanca, even though all four movies have that timeless quality to them. I would not say that any of these movies are particularly better than the others. Its just that the more recent ones hit closer to home for me, and I think that is truly what the movie going experience is all about. Sometimes, I want a deep movie that will make me think. Sometimes, I want mindless entertainment that is still, in some ways, smart, and that is where movies like Ghostbusters or the Back to the Future trilogy come in to play. It is truly about what movies speak to you, and that is probably the reason that Rob Zombie remade Halloween rather than, say, Annie Hall.
In a few years, when Hollywood has run out of ideas again, and young directors began remaking films like Raising Arizona or Rushmore, I doubt I’ll be any less freaked out about it, nor do I think I will be relieved that the director’s are pointing back to better source material. If Hollywood is running out of ideas, I would just prefer they maybe look at great novels as source material, rather than other movies. Sometimes, in the case of a Jason Voohries, Michael Myers, James Bond, or Batman, the iconicism of a character can make a remake perfectly acceptable. Still tons of bad superhero movies, and Gus Van Sant’s Norman Bates have proven that there will always be a fine line. We’ve seen two great movies based on Roal Dahl’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and two other great movies based on Robert Penn Warren’s All The King’s Men. There Will Be Blood was based on Upton Sinclair’s Oil!, and around the time that movie was released we saw No Country for Old Men based on Cormac McCarthy’s novel and Atonement based on Ian McEwan’s novel. The Cohen Brothers, who directed No Country for Old Men, will soon be working on a film adaptation of Michael Chabon’s The Yiddish Policemen’s Union. All I’m saying trying to say is that there is plenty of fresher material out there for Hollywood to work with. If you’re feeling stuck, adapt from novels, not other movies.
