Repeat Repeat
Is the spate in the last ten years of un-original source material for films merely a result of greedy film executives capitalizing on the nostalgia of the present generation of young adults, or does it bely a time of stagnation in which, having been cut off from our past by a modernist culture, we have ceased to make our own stories and are desperately scratching to reclaim whatever it was that made us who we are? Are we really so identity-less? Are we so terrified of offending someone with our perspectives that we have to continually fall back on something that is tried and true - that someone else came up with - to communicate with each other? I feel like the whole trajectory of cinema - which is a major means of societal communication in the West - is a larger version of the pathetic cliches we often cling to in conversation and relationships. Or maybe it's just greedy executives cashing in on my childhood.
posted by Lian at 11:44 am
14 Comments:
great post chapm, right up my alley. i can say i agree with you to an extent about the shameless marketing of certain licencses (i.e. dukes of hazard, he-man, charlie's angels, etc.) to make a quick buck on a gauraunteed nostolgia.
but where the line begins to fade is where the virtues of 'oral' tradition begins. i think it's invaluable that humans continue to reinvent and pass on tales from the past. there needs to be at least some room for this preservation. especially when they speak of loss and redemption in contexts that a new generation needs to hear (ie lord of the rings, the passion, romeo and juilet). sure it comes in the form of money making juggernauts and exhibitionism today, but it is the most widly effect method of storytelling we currently embrace.
i think if we remove the corruption of cheap imatations and attempts to exploit our weaknesses, there are some valuable things to relearn and continue to pass on. i think even our latest craze with superheros needs to be evaluated in the terms of exploitation vs. mythic education. certainly the contrast of these values can be seen in the new batman vs. fantasic four films.
7:10 am
Agreed, dear reader. There are stories that simply must be told...and some that do not yet require a retelling i.e. Willie Wonka's Chocolate factory (boo-hiss!) I think what becomes pathetic is when the same script is used in the new film that was used in the old version and it becomes simply an opportunity for us to see in colous with familiar faces an old story. Why do we quake at the idea of simply watching these old movies for ourselves? We mock the claymation King Kong instead of embrace it for where it was in it's generational context.
Here's to not making any sense!
erika
9:40 am
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
11:26 am
to add on what you were saying erika, i think it's important to not just retell, but bring something new to the original ideas. if you can't reimagine the story (like a cover song) than don't do it. i love "down with love", but it has little value for cinema because it essentially said the same thing all those old rock hudson pictures did, only with new faces. do we actually need more of the same?
i love the 1940's radio dramas, but for me to do an 'impression' of them would defeat the purpose unless i can retell them in a way that causes the listener to at once reexamine the originals and reexamine the essence of those stories in a way that the world has not yet experienced them. not for the sake of invention, but for the sake of expression. the world is constantly communicating things, it's our job to listen, digest and articulate these things.
11:28 am
I was just reading today about Van Trier and Co's "Dogma" cinema style and one of the things they are adamant about is never allowing genre and style to interfere with characters. I don't really think their ideas are very consistent but I think there's something to be said for not allowing genre to destroy the process of truth telling. Lately, it seems the recreation of genre has eclipsed meaty, sympathetic characters that don't rely on archetypes. Or, maybe moreso, the retelling of favorite stories has sidetracked writers and directors from intorducing us to characters we can be affected by. In doing so, of course, they ruin the good old tale they're trying to tell.
6:04 pm
ya i really enjoy the dogma crap no special effects, studio lighting, etc. the genre rule is new for me though. i like that. i think that's even without adhereing to the dogma rule some films stand out because they ignore genre at the cost of public embrace, but with the gain of cult success (donnie darko, the man who fell to earth, evil dead).
the coen bros.' 'barton fink' shows this really well. john tuturo is hired to write a 'boxing picture', the fat cats tell him the basic formula to follow like everyone of the other 'working class hero' pictures. he comes back with the script and it's rejected for it's lack of popular punch, it has no creshendo of tears and triumph. turturo explains that he simply wanted to give him something beautiful. i think there's a place for truly great genre films, films that simply strive to entertain, utilizing strong characters and invitations to the deeper questions without being redundunt.
6:33 pm
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
6:35 pm
Yeah, I definitely agree that genre is important and can be used to great effect. I just don't think genre should ever be used to carry a film. If the storyu and characters can't stand up when all the bells and whistles and style is stripped away, you've probably got something kind of crummy.
9:22 am
interesting conversation.
when phil told me about your post i immediatley thought " it's kinda nice to be reminded of stories "of old" in new ways. and it opens doors for the younger generations to share in the joy/experience"
okay maybe chuck is saying pretty much this but just thought i'd say something so it's more then just the 2 of you...
but i do agree with erika - how does one go about getting a hold of some of the more classic films not so avaliable at say block buster?
ruthie
2:13 pm
I heard a radio interview with the producer of the recently released Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy in which he explained the evolution of the hitchhiker story. Douglas Adams, the author and original creator first produced the story concept as a BBC radio series, then as a TV show, then as the book trilogy, and finally, as a movie (although the film was made and released after his death). the interesting thing is that the plot and characters were the same throughout eash metamorphasis, but the structure and specific content changed somewhat, as did the artistic design. Apparently Adams never intended for each new medium presentation of Hitchhiker's to be an exact replica of the original presentation. Yet the movie definitely does the Hitchhiker's tradition justice. I think that The Lord of the Rings was produced with similar sentiments and with similar success.
I suppose I haven't given as much thought as the rest of you have to the topic, but I do agree that most of the modern remakes are terrible, shameless, attempts to trash old themes for the almighty dollar.
I haven't listened to the entire issue, but check out this audio journal that addresses film and hollywood: www.stannespub.com/issues/Film.asp
7:24 am
It is a shame that the good ol classics are hard to come by however if you are persistant I'm sure you can round up some of them. Maybe we could create an interest and they'd start to release the old movies again! Yeah for dramatic black and white!
erk
9:25 am
Since when is making money wrong? iven the millions a film cost to produce of course making a profit is the goal.
For example the willie wonka comment in the second post.
Surely it is obvious that the film can only be remade if there is an audience for it. If there is then who cares what anyone else thinks as movie making is a business.
Not so in Australia of course due to the industry being over run by left wing hacks who think they are owed a perpetual handout from the government.
No concept of how money is made.
Shameless marketing would be to offer something and provide something less or other than promised.
The christian value system however provides a basis where we can make lots of money.
That is why nations who's laws are founded on the bible tend to be rich and in a position to help others.
1:45 am
Agree that Wonka didn't need a retell, but the crowds seem to think differently.
Kong I couldn't wait to get out of the sinema. The metaphor was good, the story telling bad.
Narnia is beautiful in its way, but missed so much mythic resonance, while adding some of its own (very well).
The Hulk tried to be meaningful a bit too much though. I mean, the guy was supposed to be nervous, not a victim of radiation experiments inflicted by his father.
Telling tales well is not necessarily helped by big $, sometimes it is.
The trrick, as chuck indicated with the Barton Fink example, is when your passion becomes your profession, you become beholden to the man who pays the bills. This doesn't necessarily mean your work corrupts, as practical necessities steer us every day. But it might. Did you see The Bros Grimm?
1:56 am
I do wonder what the scriptwriter was thinking in Willie Wonka. In one scene a 40 year old man (Wonka) calls to a 9 yo girl "Little girl please don't touch that squirels nuts".
If a school teacher said that as a joke he would surelu/hopefully lose his job.
And how's the scene when the 9yo boy after being shrunk finds himself in a bath. A naked oompha loompha steps in with also. the boy is now standing between his legs, then he looks up. Of course the camera shows the shower head but what were they thinking on paper. Given what we all know the kid would have really seen.
Freaky stuff from Tim Burton.
2:19 am
Post a Comment
<< Home