Oscar History
Film Bitch History
Welcome

The Film Experience™ was created by Nathaniel R. All material herein is written by our team. (This site is not for profit but for an expression of love for cinema & adjacent artforms.)

Follow TFE on Substackd

Powered by Squarespace
Keep TFE Strong

We're looking for 500... no 390 SubscribersIf you read us daily, please be one.  

I ♥ The Film Experience

THANKS IN ADVANCE

What'cha Looking For?
Subscribe

Entries in remakes (155)

Thursday
Mar312011

Gotta Rant! Men (and Women) in Tights.

Gotta Sing....
A few days ago I read over at A Socialite's Life that Hugh Jackman is talking to Bollywood producers about work. You know... I like Bollywood just fine, sometimes quite a lot more than that, and I don't mean this as a slight but Hollywood is a crappy crappy please if one of its biggest stars has to actually leave our movie industry for another to show off his skillset. Grrrr. And, also: grrrl. (I'm fuming). I guess Hollywood only wants him to Wolverine but he has so much more in him.

Where is his big screen musical? If ever a modern male star could be a big deal singing and dancing on the screen it's him. He was amazement in The Boy From Oz on Broadway and he was thisbig. I saw him from the last row of the house with my head touching the wall in the far left corner (truth), the worst seat I've ever had for a show, and I was totally mesmerized. I think seeing him blown up on the big screen doing that same thing might kill me. But I'd die happy.

Amy Adams is another huge bankable star whose musical talent is in danger of being wasted. Lois Lane? Really? A role that any feisty actress could do in her sleep and also another "girlfriend" part to the true star. You'd think after hit movies and multiple Oscar nominations, she could get another good leading role.

The only way I want to see Amy Adams, who is so dynamite in comedy (Enchanted) and dramedy (Junebug) and in the right dramatic role (The Fighter), in a superhero movie is if she's the superhero.

The rest of the negativity must be confined to the jump. Click ahead for more on superheroes, Batman's eventual reboot and that weary-limbed Natalie Portman dancing controversy.

Click to read more ...

Tuesday
Mar222011

Akira Redux

You've heard that they're making a live action American version of Katsuhiro Otomo's Akira (1988), right? That's the sci-fi cartoon that really opened the Anime floodgates here in the States. I have a faint memory of seeing the movie in the theater when it arrived in the States -- I think 1990? -- and that memory involves two things: my jaw was mostly open throughout from the epic violent craziness, and my best friend at the time who I went to every movie with (hi Kevan!) turned to me during the climactic battle when Tetsuo transforms hideously into this blob like creature and said something silly like "quivering mounds of blubbery goo" in a dramatic but silly voice. We started giggling and a rather, um, large patron in front of us turned around to give us hateful looks. Embarrassing! But we were just reacting to the visuals on screen, I promise.

For those of you who are unfamiliar, the film is about a gang member biker Kaneda and his efforts to stop his powerful psychic friend Tetsuo from destroying Neo-Tokyo, an artificial city of sorts built after the destruction of the real Tokyo by another psychic boy named Akira who is still alive but imprisoned. (It takes place in 2019.) The new version will be directed by Albert Hughes (The Book of Eli) and the adaptation was done by Steve Kloves (The Fabulous Baker Boys, the Harry Potter franchise).

Though it was to be expected that the American remake would Americanize the story (it'll now take place in a futuristic New York City. Will they call it "New New York"?), some of us were stupid enough to hope that they'd realize that America does not equal caucasian. When your movie is based on a famous Japanese movie, it's not like you couldn't win lots of street cred and fan favor by casting Japanese Americans in the lead roles. Hell, even just Asian Americans of any type would win you non-racist points, as you'd still be acknowledging that people of color should maybe lead properties that are non-white in origin. Oh sure, you can say "there are no bankable Asian American actors" but how will there ever be if they're never given opportunities? And here's a thing Hollywood often forgets in their risk averse decisions: remakes of famous movies as well as virtually all genre titles, are sold primarily on their brand awareness and on their genre. This may be an unpopular theory but even something like Inception. Consider: What sold more opening weekend tickets? The folding city in the trailer or Leonardo DiCaprio's name in the trailer. The latter cost them 8 figures. This is why I've never understood why Batman in his multiple incarnations always requires an expensive leading man; BATMAN IS THE STAR, not the actor. Movie producers used to understand this. Christopher Reeves was not famous when he signed on for Superman and it sure didn't hurt that film's box office. District 9's box office wasn't hurt by using an (excellent) unknown in the lead role. With certain genres (mostly the "geek" genres: superhero, sci-fi, horror) the genre and the concept is the star.

My points is this. New York City is not lacking for diversity. I am white and I am most definitely a minority in my neighborhood. So why do movies set in NYC always seem lily white? And surprise: Actors come in all nationalities and skin colors, not just American/British/Australian and white.

illustration by taka0801

The actors being discussed for the lead roles of Kaneda and Tetsuo, who'll obviously have to be renamed Ken and Todd, are the following: Robert Pattinson, Andrew Garfield, James McAvoy, Garrett Hedlund, Michael Fassbender, Chris Pine, Justin Timberlake and Joaquin Phoenix. That's a lot of different acting styles and accomplishments and types and even ages. So basically, once again, we see that casting has nothing to do with what's required for roles or what tone a film is aiming for, it's just "whoever is on the studio's lips" each time. Sad. Casting is an artform, too. I really wish we'd see some acknowledgement that it is.

If The Film Experience were a massive site with millions of readers I'd demand a casting call right here. I'd be asking for all unknown or 20to30something Asian actors with excellent English skills, physical action film aptitude, and movie star good looks to send in their headshots and reels and I'd be packaging it all up with the top 20 and sending it Warner Bros way. Freelance casting director for hire!

Daniel Henney, Won Bin, Chang Chen, Masahiro Motoki, Takeshi Kaneshiro, Dennis Oh, Matsuyami Kenichi and Hiroshi Tamaki

Seriously, I don't understand why I can spend (literally only) 15 minutes brainstorming and come up with a couple of handfuls of Asian actors that might be cool to think about / test / consider for these roles (even allowing for the studio's random age ranges and no discernable "type") if they spoke English well -- surely some of them do, especially the American ones! ;)  -- but Hollywood studios with all of their casting resources and their budgets and their months of pre-production work don't ever even consider meeting with any of them? Do they even look at headshots? Do they even know that male actors of Asian descent exist? I'm beginning to wonder.

I suppose the most we can hope for at this point is that they deign to let Ken's (née Kaneda) love-interest Kei keep her Asian-ness. Every once in awhile the studios will let an Asian actress play a girlfriend. But Asian men? Forget about it. Shame.

Need More Akira? We'll be celebrating again in April in our "Hit Me With Your Best Shot" series. It's collaborative so join in.

Are you a new reader? Welcome. Please consider subscribing or bookmarking - some more pieces on animated films and Asian cinema coming up. We've been in the mood.

Another article addressing this problem -- though not Akira related:
Asia Pacific Arts "Hot Asian Actors Hollywood Doesn't Yet Realize It Needs"

Sunday
Mar062011

Links

Rock Paper Scissors God, I'm losing even to the "novice" computer. Don't click over. I warn you of the time you will waste!
Us Magazine
reveals the identity of Scarlett Johansson's much-discussed (including right here) Oscar date.
The House Next Door
"A Firm Hand" Dan Callahan on the ultimate blonde, Catherine Deneuve.
IndieWire has an overview of "Rendezvous With French Cinema" (the reason I'm meeting Ludivine Sagnier tomorrow)

Just Jared Ewan McGregor has a new haircut. He's also about to make a bank robbery movie. Andrew Garfield is also (possibly) starring in the remake of the Austrian/German movie The Robber. What hath The Town wrought?
Daily Mail I didn't even know Toni Collette was pregnant again and she's quite far along. I miss United States of Tara.
b blog interview with Sissy Spacek's daughter Schuyler Fisk. She's got a new album out and she'll be in Gus Van Sant's Restless later this year. So music or movies, Schuyler?

Music... I just love that it’s my own thing. It’s a special thing I can do. I also love being a part of a film, especially projects like “Restless.” The film actually inspired the last song on the record, “Waterbird.”

And here's a half hour long "making of" of Todd Haynes's Mildred Pierce if you don't have HBO and might need to wait awhile to see it. In the meantime there's always the Joan Crawford classic to get acquainted with in the interim. It's well worth your time.

Wednesday
Feb022011

New DVD: Let Me In

It occurred to me recently that I had never said anything about Let Me In, post theatrical release, so let's do that now since it's fresh out on DVD. The American vampire film won a few year-end citations here and there as a high-quality film but it didn't fare well with the public. It was featured in Cinematical's surprising and funny list of the lowest grossing wide releases of 2010 a month ago. Here's what they said about the vampire film.

Let Me In (Gross: $12.1 million. Widest release: 2,042 theaters.) Let's face it. No matter how good it was, a moody remake of a Swedish import about a non-sparkling teen vampire was never going to be a blockbuster. But we were still surprised at just how poorly this fared in theaters. For comparison's sake, 'Twilight: Eclipse' made $300 million, and even 'Vampires Suck' made $36 million. This is why we can't have nice things.

I get the sentiment and love the joke but I can't agree that it's a big loss as a "nice thing".

It's true that I objected to the remake so I wasn't automatically the most receptive audience. But I kept hearing how good it was so I finally caved and watched a couple of months ago, at first with great interest, about what they'd alter and how its new American setting would affect it. The strong reviews are not surprising. It's a well made, handsome movie. The cinematography is beautiful and moody (though it heavily borrows from the aesthetic ideas from the original, particularly in regards to depth of field), the performances are solid, etcetera.

But the movie fails to answer the question that all remakes must answer: What is the reason you are remaking this? If the movie presents no answer beyond "because it was in a funny language" the movie has failed.

The American version of Let The Right One In didn't make radical changes or bring in new exciting ideas about the characters/story. The few alterations seemed to merely underline the originals suggestion that the victimized boy (Oskar/Owen) would one day become the serial killing man (Håkan/The Father) because he loves that little monster (Eli/Abby). It's creepier when you have to do the work to connect those dots yourself. The only big alteration (place but not time) adds nothing new. And then there were minor erasures of the first film's more difficult and more ambiguous sexuality. Gone was the shock cut to Eli/Abby's genital area and gone was Oskar's gay (?)  father  -- this character never appears in the remake except by telephone where we learn that he's shacked up with someone named "Cindy". Unless that's a drag queen, he's safely heterosexual for American audiences. Audiences of the original seem to disagree on matters of Eli's gender and on Oskar's father's orientation but the very fact that they prompt argument is another testament to the first film's insinuating ambiguous grip on its audience.

Oskar & Owen

Mostly Let Me In seems content to love and ape Let The Right One In clinging to it as willfully as Oskar/Owen latches on to Eli/Abby. The love is a mark of good taste but a weak excuse for a remake. If you love something, watch it! Be inspired by it. Make your own thing instead. The film it most recalls, other than the Swedish original, is Gus Van Sant's Psycho (1998). That earlier much-reviled "recreation" is a far more interesting artistic exercize because it's so weirdly honest about it's own borrowed artistry and masturbatory xeroxing. Critics weren't at all kind but then that one wasn't in a 'funny language' to begin with.

Also New on DVD This Week
Critical darling indie Monsters, the true story Conviction (interview with Juliette Lewis), the sci-fi tinged drama Never Let Me Go (here's a piece on Andrew Garfield) and Oscar doc finalist The Tillman Story.

Thursday
Jan202011

Clint Eastwood & Beyoncé. A Match Made In...

This might just be the strangest thing you read all week.

Clint Eastwood, currently working on FBI biopic J. Edgar, starring Leonardo DiCaprio as Hoover and Armie Hammer as his lover and star employee, will be chasing that unlikely project with... wait for it...

A STAR IS BORN with Beyoncé. According to Deadline it's a go and they may even start shooting the third musical version of this story before the end of the year. There are so many things one might say to this news including.

"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooo"

or perhaps

"the earth is doomed" which is what I tweeted.

Maybe "Streisand is gonna be pissed" which is what I went with for my upcoming Towleroad column.

Stars Are Born in the 30s (Gaynor) the 50s (Garland) and 70s (Streisand)

I've never understood why anyone would want to remake A Star is Born (including Babs in the 70s), given that Judy Garland's 1954 performance is so unassailably ginormous and mythical and awesome and Oscar winning (damnit!). But mostly, I'm scratching my head about conservative manly "get off my lawn" Clint Eastwood doing two gay-appeal projects back to back. First he's training his Oscarbait eyes on a closeted cross-dresser and then he's turning klieg lights on an actual show queen?

Finally, aside from Eastwood's "what the hell will this be like?" involvement it feels rather redundant and not just because we've already had three film versions. Won't watching Beyoncé do A Star is Born be like watching a two hour extended remix of "Listen" from Dreamgirls.

That's the whole emotional arc and story right there.

 

Page 1 ... 27 28 29 30 31