Remakes and Sequels: Then And Now

I learn something new every day, I was not aware that the movie Sabrina (the one with Bogart) was based on a play. Thanks for that little bit of history.

As to its quality, I saw the Harrison Ford version first, and on its own, it's a pretty basic romantic comedy as I remember it. It was a pleasant way to spend an afternoon, but not particularly memorable movie. Compared to the original, it's a pretty poor comparison. (And I love Harrison Ford!! ) The 1990s version of Sabrina doesn't stand the comparison well at all. It's not very good, in my opinion, anyway.

Disturbia

Form an interview with director D J Caruso:

At first glance Disturbia is Rear Window meets The Girl Next Door (really, you can pick any of the dozen movies with that title), but it's the way the two very different genres are meshed together that makes it such a unique and fulfilling experience. Shia LaBeouf plays Kale, an angry teen put under house arrest for the summer for hitting his teacher, who uses the time to spy on the community, including neighboring hottie Ashley, played by newcomer Sarah Roehmer, and his creepy neighbor Robert Turner (David Morse) who Kale suspects is responsible for the disappearance of a number of area women.


You mentioned the "Rear Window" thing so besides adding the character stuff, how did you work on getting away from that?
Caruso: You don't get away from the main idea of a guy whose in house arrest looking out on his neighbors, but outside of that, I was telling everybody, the movie we watched the most for Shia was really "The Conversation" with Hackman. I kept saying to him, "Look at the way that he's reacting, because everything he's hearing he's putting together in his head and it's all about his imagination. And look how beautifully understated his performance is." It was really more of an inspiration in a way than "Rear Window." The "Rear Window" idea is a jumping off point of a guy who's stuck and has to watch. Obviously, we have all the technology that we use with the celphones and the camera you can now buy at "Best Buy" that when you go to digital zoom, has a 750 mm lens in there. It was fun to use that technology to expand on the idea and also to introduce the concept of the voyeuristic to a younger audience who's not that familiar with a movie like "Rear Window."

Click to expand...

Disturbia stars some callow kid with a hideous name like Shasta Au Jus or something like that.

Not on my to-see list.

What I don't understand is the fact that a live stage production can be produced at a school, on Broadway, on television, or at a small theatre venue, and it's not considered a "remake". Movies and music seem to be the guilty ones.

Just getting back to Sabrina for a second, I believe the play was essentially a flop, and was never done again after its short Broadway run. (Lots of films are based on Broadway flops - including Casablanca!) The Billy Wilder touch and Audrey's incandescent personality made the movie a hit and instant classic... I'd say that in this case, it's essentially *irrelevant* that the movie was based on a play - the recent version is *definitely* a remake of the well-known Billy Wilder film!

HadleyH said:

I'm not a big fan of remakes but this is one of the earliest and better ones. It's a film about Hollywood and deals with the motion picture colony, it's a classic.

"What Price Hollywood" 1932 with Constance Bennett

five years later David O.Selnick developed the idea into;

"A Star Is Born" with Janet Gaynor

which was to be remade in 1954 into

Judy Garland's "A Star Is Born"


I think that later in the 60s or 70s there was another version of it but that one doesn't count, it's not Golden Years in my eyes.

Click to expand...

Barbara Streisand in "A Star is Born" 1976 with Kris Kristofferson and Gary Busey

tallyho said:

Barbara Streisand in "A Star is Born" 1976 with Kris Kristofferson and Gary Busey

Click to expand...

You are right! That was the last version of that movie. Thanks for sharing.

happyfilmluvguy said:

What I don't understand is the fact that a live stage production can be produced at a school, on Broadway, on television, or at a small theatre venue, and it's not considered a "remake". Movies and music seem to be the guilty ones.

Click to expand...

I think what causes this feeling (which I will admit to being guilty of) is that with a live stage play, there is an understanding that it will always be a different experience. People don't expect to see the same actor in the same role for a lifetime on the stage.

Movies come to feel like old friends to viewers. We know what we expect the experience to be, and feel that the actor has an ownership over a role, or a director over a vision. When somebody makes another version or bases one movie on another etc., somehow I think viewers see this as infringing on the "ownership" of someone else, though viewers often are more forgiving if the original work was lesser than the second. This same sense of expectation is very common when a book is made into a film. If it varies from the original vision of the author, people are often upset. It disrupts the viewer/reader's sense of expectation.

I've had the same argument with people about "covers" in music. And as much as I really don't want to hear anyone besides Johnny Cash sing "Ring of Fire", I recognize that up until music was commonly recorded, a hundred years ago or so, songs didn't have an "ownership". In the past, Bob from Bakersfield wasn't the only person someone would expect to hear singing a particular song.

It's an interesting phenomenon, though one I commonly fall victim to myself....

Joie DeVive said:

I think what causes this feeling (which I will admit to being guilty of) is that with a live stage play, there is an understanding that it will always be a different experience. People don't expect to see the same actor in the same role for a lifetime on the stage.

Movies come to feel like old friends to viewers. We know what we expect the experience to be, and feel that the actor has an ownership over a role, or a director over a vision. When somebody makes another version or bases one movie on another etc., somehow I think viewers see this as infringing on the "ownership" of someone else, though viewers often are more forgiving if the original work was lesser than the second. This same sense of expectation is very common when a book is made into a film. If it varies from the original vision of the author, people are often upset. It disrupts the viewer/reader's sense of expectation.

I've had the same argument with people about "covers" in music. And as much as I really don't want to hear anyone besides Johnny Cash sing "Ring of Fire", I recognize that up until music was commonly recorded, a hundred years ago or so, songs didn't have an "ownership". In the past, Bob from Bakersfield wasn't the only person someone would expect to hear singing a particular song.

It's an interesting phenomenon, though one I commonly fall victim to myself....

Click to expand...

Ring of Fire performed by Johnny Cash is a cover version. It was recorded at least once before he added the horn section and made it his own.

jake_fink said:

Ring of Fire performed by Johnny Cash is a cover version. It was recorded at least once before he added the horn section and made it his own.

Click to expand...

Um, I could be wrong here, but didn't June Carter Cash (before the Cash was added, I believe) write that for him, as well as about him??
I could be wrong on that footnote, but I would have sworn I had seen her in interviews saying that.

But my point was more that it is a signature piece for him, and I don't care to hear other versions.

But if I did make a factual error, simply replace "Ring of Fire" with "I Walk the Line" and the problem is solved.

You're not mistaken, it was written by June Carter, about him.

I think Jake is referring to this. It was in fact written by her, and for him.

Carter wrote this song while driving around aimlessly one night, worried about Cash's wildman ways -- and aware that she couldn't resist him. "There is no way to be in that kind of hell, no way to extinguish a flame that burns, burns, burns," she wrote. Not long after hearing June's sister Anita's take on the song, Cash had a dream that he was singing it with mariachi horns. Cash's version became one of his biggest hits, and his marriage to June four years later helped save his life.

Click to expand...

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/6595932/ring_of_fire

That's part of it. I have to agree to that. An actor, actress, or director has a sort of ownership for their part in the movie. I believe the reason for any movie to be remade is not "Hollywood's" decision, but the directors or producers. You love an idea so much that you want to make your own version of it. That isn't a bad thing, is it? We all see movies that are apart of us, and if someone gave you a couple million dollars to create your own version of it, it's like a dream come true.

Remakes are an influence of the original, really. If movie greats like Gone With The Wind or Casablanca, even more recent films like E.T. or Back To The Future were to be remade, we'd probably condemn them to hell, but think about the kind of challenge you are facing as the cast or crew. You love that movie so much that you want to create your own version and be proud to be apart of it. I wasn't around to be a part of these movies. There's a sentimentality about them that make us want to make our own creation of the same material, aka, an influence.

Sequels on the other hand are just a continuation of a film. I know if I had been in the theater after seeing Raiders of the Lost Ark, I would have wanted to see the character's epic adventures continued. Some sequels work, some don't. That's the movies.

I really liked the original "Planet of the Apes" from the 60s for it´s criticising of humanship and for the unexpected end... The remake with Mark Wahlberg just totally sucked. Off course the costumes were better and the apes more ape-ish in their behaviour, but they tried too hard to make it a action-movie and changed big parts of the story plus the end was horrible (and I didn´t even really get the end). What´s the point in changing the end???

Dan G said:

I think Jake is referring to this. It was in fact written by her, and for him.

Carter wrote this song while driving around aimlessly one night, worried about Cash's wildman ways -- and aware that she couldn't resist him. "There is no way to be in that kind of hell, no way to extinguish a flame that burns, burns, burns," she wrote. Not long after hearing June's sister Anita's take on the song, Cash had a dream that he was singing it with mariachi horns. Cash's version became one of his biggest hits, and his marriage to June four years later helped save his life.

Click to expand...

Thanks Dan G. I knew that Cash had changed the arrangement and added the horns, but I was unaware that it had been recorded by anyone else. (That is what would make it a cover, right??)

John and June were so amazing together. I was lucky enough to see them a few times while they were still touring. I still have a deep and abiding admiration of them. Remembering seeing the two of them standing center stage singing "The Circle Won't Be Broken" warms my heart even to this day.

happyfilmluvguy,

I can understand and respect the desire of others to remake, or make movies based on something earlier. We all get inspiration from somewhere. I willingly admit that a viewer putting an exclusive ownership on a role, story or vision isn't really reasonable. After all as you pointed out nobody blinks at play revivals, but somehow movies tend to inspire those feelings of ownership. We get unreasonably attached.

One of the repeatedly remade stories I find most interesting is the story of Anna Leanowns (sp?) and the King of Siam. There is some question of the veracity of the actual story, but a woman from the Victorian period wrote a book about her supposed adventures as said teacher. The first film version that I am aware of is the one starring Rex Herrison as the king, then there was the play, "The King and I" which was made into the classic movie, and the most recent version starring Jodie Foster which I think was entitled "Anna and the King". I may have missed some versions in there, those are the ones I'm aware of.
These are all based on one event/book, but are all quite different. I can understand the desire of anyone to want to use this story. That being said, I have an attachment to the classic musical. It isn't the original, but it speaks to me, and to me it is the "right" telling despite the fact that isn't the earliest telling, and it doesn't come close to following the book. Is it unreasoned, yup, but it is still the way I feel. I think similar unreasoned feelings are what causes backlash at remakes and such.

I think what gets me with Disturbia though, is a combination of factors. First, as I have stated, I think that Rear Window is perfect. Then, I have read an interview by one of the makers implying that they are somehow improving on the work of Hitchcock. The arrogance of that ruffles my feathers, especially since as the advertisements show it, this movie is going to go into gore and such, which in my opinion makes it a lesser piece not greater. I feel less is often more. An artist doesn't have to show it to you. An artist can make YOU go there. And what YOU create is worse than what he probably would show because it is specifically horrifying to you.

But that's just my view on things....

Thank you Miss Devive for sharing your view on things. I'm not again these type of movies, or even with them. I guess it's more or less trying to understand their value. We all have thoughts, and sometimes our expectations are just not what we thought them to be. We can think to ourselves, "if I remade this film, all the world can see my talent!" but it just doesn't work out that way, and backfires. A film can be remade for a modern audience sure, a film can be continued into a sequel or two, but sometimes the film, to us, like you have stated, has more value, and we'd just like them to stay the way they are.

For films like Alfred Hitchcock's, a re-release would be much more suited, I feel, because his films have stood through the ages of time. They are old, but are very modern for any age. We'll always have these films, and it's not that bad that a movie is fiddled with. It's only a movie. Search through your movie collection and pull out the original. Why bother being annoyed by the sequel, prequel or remake. Sit back and enjoy the "original" show, and let it take you for a bumpy ride.

Joie DeVive said:

Thanks Dan G. I knew that Cash had changed the arrangement and added the horns, but I was unaware that it had been recorded by anyone else. (That is what would make it a cover, right??)

John and June were so amazing together. I was lucky enough to see them a few times while they were still touring. I still have a deep and abiding admiration of them. Remembering seeing the two of them standing center stage singing "The Circle Won't Be Broken" warms my heart even to this day.

Click to expand...

You bet. I dunno, I guess you could say it was a cover. Hardly I think.[huh] It never was a hit for Anita Carter, so John recorded it like five or six months later.[huh]

I'm a huge fan, and I'm green with envy!! I never got to see him. Did you see Walk the Line? I love that movie!

Aw, thank you happyfilmluvguy. Feel free to call me Joie. I've really been enjoying this thread.

I'm not against remakes per se either. If I were, it would be hard to justify my beloved "King and I". I was just trying to answer why remakes tend to get a bad rap.

I understand that sometimes film-makers hope to make something glorious out of an inspiration and fall flat. One of my pet peeves was John Carpenters "Vampires" which was based on the John Steakley novel Vampire$. (If you have a fondness for action/adventure or an interest in vampires, I highly recommend the book.) Anyway, I'm sure the makers meant well, but the wild changes to the plot and character happened to burn my toast, so to speak... And while it seems the reviewers tended to agree with me, art is art, and not everyone will agree.

I am game to see remakes, and movies made out of my favorite books, as the above attests to. I'm not always sure why some I love and some I hate. For example, I loved the film adaptation of Jurassic Park despite the alteration of characters, and leaving out my favorite sections. It seems odd that we should be so invested in such things, doesn't it? Ah well, such is life.

As for Rear Window, they did re-release it. I went to see it a few years back, but it was only in tiny art theaters. I had to travel into Berkeley to see it. It was worth it, and in Hitchcock's famous silences, you could have heard a pin drop even though the theater was half full. Hollywood doesn't seem to like re-releasing right now. I'm not sure why. If you notice, not even Disney is doing it, and that used to be their bread and butter. When there are re-releases they can be hard to find. It's really funny because I think people want to see some of these movies. "Gone With the Wind" did well about 6 years ago, and when a local theater here played "The Wizard of Oz" the room, their largest, by the way, was packed at 10 AM on a Saturday. Imagine how much money could be made if "It's a Wonderful Life" were re-released at Thanksgiving!!

Dan G said:

You bet. I dunno, I guess you could say it was a cover. Hardly I think.[huh] It never was a hit for Anita Carter, so John recorded it like five or six months later.[huh]

I'm a huge fan, and I'm green with envy!! I never got to see him. Did you see Walk the Line? I love that movie!

Click to expand...

You got this one up there while I was answering happyfilmluvguy.

I actually, haven't had a chance to see "Walk the Line" yet. I wasn't sure that Reese Witherspoon would be able to pull off June, but I have heard good things. It's on my list of ones to see. Good to hear that another fan likes it.

I'm sorry you didn't get to see him.
I think he stopped touring in the late 80s. I wasn't all that old when I saw them, but it sure left an impression.

I think she does a pretty good job. I was really impressed with Joaquin Phoenix. Not necessarily for his Johnny Cash impression, (though I thought it was pretty good) but more for his singing! Wow!!

I'll bet it did! He's awesome...
Ever listen to him with The Highwaymen?