Dark Shadows Slowly Moving Our Way

A big screen adaptation of television's cult oddity supernatural soap opera  "Dark Shadows" has been in development for ages now but it looks like it's finally happening. Tim Burton is finalizing his cast. In previous years this news would have thrilled me to no end. But it's been a long time since I could love a Burton film without reservation and adapting long form serials to the two hour demands of the big screen is wrought with... ahem... issues, no matter how talented the team. But maybe it's worth hoping that Burton could regain some early 90s glory? The last "vampires" (of sorts) that Tim Burton trained his camera on were actors playing them in his superb biopic Ed Wood (1994) so let's take that as a good omen.

And this:

"Elizabeth Collins Stoddard" and Michelle PfeifferDeadline reports that both Michelle Pfeiffer (wheeeeeeeee) and Helena Bonham Carter (duh! It's a Burton film) are both lined up for the major roles of Elizabeth Collins Stoddard and Dr. Julia Hoffman respectively.

The best part of this news might be this sentence at The Hollywood Reporter.

Pfeiffer is finding herself very much in demand this new year.

Music to a pfan's ears.

Since I've never seen an episode of Dark Shadows (have you?) I had to look these roles up. Elizabeth sounds like a beauty of a part. She's the regal shut in matriarch of the mansion where the story takes place and Wikipedia says "Despite her imperious and reserved exterior, Elizabeth is a deeply passionate woman who harbors several dark secrets." Ice queen with deep wells of inner fire? That's what you call Pfeifferian. It's not exactly a stretch but let's pray that Burton gets performances as good as he got for Ed Wood (which won Martin Landau the Oscar as the drug-haunted, faded star Bela Lugosi).

Dr Julia Meet Dr HelenaAs for Helena's role, she's a doctor who specializes in blood disorders who discovers the vampiric lead character Barnabas Collins. Over the course of the series her relationship to the vampire changes apparently but since this is a feature film with only two hours to tell the story who knows if she's friend or foe.

Some of you may recall that my friend Susan wrote a piece on this movie a couple years back at the old Film Experience blog and wherein she saw HBC coming in this exact role, writing.

Dr. Julia Hoffman's questionable methods and attitude make her my favorite character (so far) from the original series. The epitome of Barnabas’s foolishness is that he can’t see how fabulous the not-so-good doctor is since he’s blinded by the boring (but youthful) babes. If Burton ends up directing this, I’ll expect Helena Bonham Carter to take on this role, and since she doesn’t have to sing, I think she’d be a pretty good choice.

I presume I don't have to tell you which movie star has the lead role of Barnabas Collins. Who else would it be? Yes, him. Eva Green as the witch Angelique and Jackie Earle Haley as the con artist Willie Loomis have also joined the ballooning cast.

Have you ever seen Dark Shadows? Do you like the casting?

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.