FILM: REMAKES UNKNOWN

Nostalgia for the fantastical of childhood reaches into my heart this weekend with Gene Wilder's death. He returned us to that place where a parent, friend or teacher read bedtime stories or fairytales and took us on adventures, magical journeys that sparked our "Pure Imagination," as in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971).

(Gene Wilder in Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory)

Wilder's innocence and devil-may-care persona imbued film viewers with wonder, and sometimes fear that what we dreamed would not come true. Sadly, the great comedian's passing reminds me of how Hollywood producers have been misguided in their remake choices. Another more literal adaptation based on Roald Dahl's book, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, illustrates my assertion. If a studio wants to redo a classic film, it must be either improved or produced with a fresh vision that allows the movie to stand alone, like buying new tires instead of retreads. 

Purists will argue the later adaptation, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005), honored Dahl's darker intentions. Still, watching Tim Burton's interpretation only reminded me how much better the earlier musical is. For the director, Mel Stuart, of Willy Wonka understood how to tap children's wonder. Conversely, Burton tried to touch on adults' lost child and devilish behavior to mixed success.

The word "remake," does make me cringe. I'd say it's a rare day in filmmaking when a movie surpasses the original. However, when critics omit that the movie has been remade, I want to retrieve my light saber and exact my revenge, metaphorically of course.

Case in point, Steven Spielberg's excellent Munich (2005). Starring Eric Bana, in a role which launched his now-stalled career, the movie depicts the task force sent by Golda Meir to avenge the Munich Olympic Games' attack which killed eleven Israelis. Politics aside, critics generally praised the film--if you want stats or percentages of how many reviewers liked Munich this was before Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic emerged. When released, I read several reviews about Munich because I sought an article that mentioned the 1986 television movie based on the book, The Sword of Gideon. Not one writer I researched noted either precursor, albeit from other media. And worse, a national newspaper critic actually wrote how if anyone should make a movie about the true events for the first time, it's Steven Spielberg.

Today, reviewers rarely reference earlier film versions of movies. With some exceptions, e.g. Jeffrey Lyons, few professional critics have an in-depth knowledge of movie history. Editors may argue that their writers don't need to be as well-informed because their reviewers write subjective, opinion pieces and don't do actual reporting. For newspapers at least, those who get the plumb assignment to review movies often have earned their stripes by reporting on news stories or writing more substantive editorial content. The New York Times used to revolve its critics and/or reporters on a regular basis, for example Janet Maslin, up-to-task by the way, reviewed films for twenty years. Then, during a controversial move by The New York Times, the editors moved her to the Book section.

(DOWN WITH LOVE, Google Images)

Another illustration of critic (and editorial) sloppiness involves the 2003 film, Down with Love (2003), starring Renée Zelleger and Ewan McGregor. Many writers, including one I hold in high regard, chose to ignore that Down with Love took much of its plot line from the 1964 production, Sex and the Single Girl (also based on a book by Helen Gurley Brown) starring Natalie Wood, Tony Curtis, Lauren Bacall and Henry Fonda. Yes, some chose to acknowledge references to Doris Day movies, and yet they ignored the obvious parallels to the earlier version.

Other blatant omissions: The Island (2005) a fun, but obvious rip-off of the better 1976 movie, Logan's Run (Soon to be "remade" again). Okay, I did find a scant number of critics who referenced that sci-fi classic in their commentary. Burnt (2015), an obvious reboot of Mostly Martha (2001), remade as No Reservations (2007). And, The Imitation Game (2014), the much more historically accurate version of an earlier film about the "Enigma" codes, called Enigma, starring Kate Winslet and Dougray Scott.

Yes, word counts have forced critics to write shorter reviews in record time, and omitting allusions to earlier movie versions, as with The Imitation Game and Enigma, has some rationale. But for those directors, actors, producers, and most importantly, screenwriters--who either wrote the original story or adapted the book for the screen--that invested their heart's blood into making their films, dismissing earlier attempts is tantamount to movie blasphemy. Besides which, some filmmakers may be unaware that they've borrowed the same plot, often lines, from previous movies and are infringing on copyright laws. 

Naysayers may argue that hampering the creative process by micromanaging how movie remakes/reboots would lead to fewer films being produced or at least stalling the productions indefinitely. And of course, studios have fact-checkers, researchers, lawyers, etc. to avoid outright plagiarism, copying. What's essential from this critic's viewpoint is that film reviewers acknowledge precedents. For to ignore the past repeats the future, and audiences pay the price. In fact, I can't count the number of times I've heard others say or I've said to myself: "Where have I seen this movie before?", or more aggravating, "Why didn't the critic mention the first version?"

Movie critics also have a responsibility to their readers to acknowledge earlier productions of biographical or historical dramas (not documentaries, there is a difference, pedants). Sometimes previous Hollywood filmmakers got it right such as, The Miracle Worker (1962) which is far better than the later television remake. Or terribly wrong: Hollywood chose to reboot the brilliant Anglo-French production of Day of the Jackal (1973) as The Jackal (1997), with a new, modern plot. The movie contained the original structure's underpinnings, though it got "lost in translation" and became a wasted effort.
With the upcoming release, 2017, of Dunkirk, I will be bold and share the following: my message to local, regional and national critics is don't forget to at least mention, if not see and give a nod to, the terrific 1958 movie of the same name starring John Mills and Richard Attenborough. All right, the black-and-white production lacks the CGI we're accustomed to now. Still, I dare the updated version's director, Christopher Nolan (whom I greatly admire) to capture the taut, thought-provoking atmosphere that his earlier counterpart, Leslie Norman, so aptly portrayed. And, I throw down a challenge to critics viewing other remakes/reboots this year or Dunkirk next year to remember what came before and to avoid history repeating itself.

(Google Images)