Today, I got an email saying that Anna Faris had been cast in the remake of PRIVATE BENJAMIN. A Cold War relic, that 1980 comedy featuring a slap-sticky performance by the then adorable (and still so) Goldie Hawn was one of that decade’s most celebrated brainless comedic offerings. And the “inspired” casting of trippy cool Faris in the title role gives some comfort to fans of the original. At least making BENJAMIN again, especially in the era of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, won’t be the commission of some kind of cinematic crime.
But taking on something like CLASH, a minor stop-motion classic, might rub some viewers the wrong way. My review comes out Friday. Jeff Marker and I shot the latest episode of The Film Fix after the press screening and the video will go up on Friday as well. On the heels of last week’s raunchy celebration of the 1980s in the form of the lack luster HOT TUB TIME MACHINE, the decade filled with leg warmers and hair rock bands and ALF is slated for a powerful comeback in 2010.
On an episode of The Film Fix, Jeff Marker and I commented on the hotly anticipated sequel to TRON. Before the press screening of ALICE IN WONDERLAND, we were “treated” to the new TRON LEGACY trailer. I got excited about it—little kid excited. The film promises respect for the ground-breaker that came before it in 1982, but as the new trailer proves, new technology will be incorporated into the narrative. Think about how improvements in computers over the time period covered in the new TRON film would realistically affect the world once ruled by the Master Control Program. Such an update now could make sense and work from a story perspective.
But at the core of remakes is often a shameless money grab. Jeff Marker and I discuss the reasons for remakes in this week’s episode of The Film Fix and agree that money, as always, is the chief motivation. The recently departed Robert Culp told me once that Hollywood has a habit of taking a great title and jacking it up and placing a whole new story underneath it. For better or worse, that profundity is how things are. Recognizable properties have significant value particularly if they were done well before and, therefore, have a built in audience. And the money made by every cheesy and expensive remakes can help fund several unique dramatic projects. Money makes the world open up.
Recently, I attended a midnight private screening of a film that is just about finished with post-production. We gathered in the lobby of a metroplex and watched the film on the big screen projected from DVD. The movie, based on a popular book, is somewhat different than the source material that inspired it. Movie adaptations often suffer from comparisons to the books or in the case of remakes the movies from which they came. And there will always be cynics that will never be satisfied. With that private screening, we were fortunate enough to sit with one of the book’s authors and our discussions following the screening were enlightening. Even a book’s original writer can learn something about the story and characters that writer penned from seeing them interpreted by the director, screenwriter, and actors.
In the lobby of that theater at 2 o’clock in the morning, I noticed the poster for the upcoming American remake of DEATH AT A FUNERAL. The original film, made in 2007, was a laffer directed by Frank Oz with a mostly British cast. Returning to reprise his crazy role is Peter Dinklage, the diminutive actor that can’t seem to find the right vehicle to display his large acting talents. The reasons for remaking FUNERAL have to be mainly financial, but the change in casting to a mostly African American cast offers the potential for much cynical discussion. Add to that the directing choice, Neil LeBute, and FUNERAL could be a major success or a disaster.
Maybe readers can remember that Charlie Kaufman movie SYNECDOCHE, NEW YORK (2008). In that film, stage director Caden Cotard (played by Philip Seymour Hoffman) found success with casting DEATH OF A SALESMAN with a young cast, thus, flipping much of the original source material’s pathos. And it worked! Sometimes taking risks with a remake can path off by bringing something completely new to the table—producing a new interpretation. Such has been the on-going laboratory experiment with anything by the great Bard. A second or third take can be the mother of invention.
But the 1980s, 2010 will mark the return of THE KARATE KID, a reboot of PREDATOR, and a new RED DAWN. That last film, coming out in November, was co-written by Jeremy Passmore, who spoke with me last year about his little movie SPECIAL. It has to be fun for a writer who grew up watching the cheesy actioners of the ’80s to now be given a chance to bring something like RED DAWN back for a whole new generation. Again, the title is jacked up and a whole new story is stuck underneath. And there’s nothing wrong with that so long as unique projects are not shelved to make even more room for other remakes that have no business being remade.
As the summer approaches other remakes of 1980s’ flicks will be seen. The only thing making me interested in the new A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET is the casting of the resurgent child actor now adult Jackie Earl Haley. Remakes can be good for actors in need that next mortgage payment. The bottom line is the bottom line….
