Yeah, the atmosphere.
Yeah, the exquisite filming of objects.
Yeah, the people in it.
It’s a true collaboration, the entire team were old friends, who had already worked together many times. You can feel it in the film. Not only does it look great, but it feels like it was a blast to make it.
But you know, there’s only one reason to really see the movie.
“I know who I am … I know who I am … I know who I am! … I know who I am … I know who I am … I know who I am …”
You keep thinking he will stop, that he is “done”, that there are no more depths of grief for him to explore.
But you’re wrong.
Where you think he will stop, he keeps going.
An extraordinary talent.
Sheila, the idea of âremakesâ of great films irks me no end, even films that I donât consider great but leave an indelible impression of some sort (cinematic, acting, – whatever). As soon as I saw that you were featuring âAngel Heartâ I wondered how you feel about them (remakes). The reason I ask is, just last week I came across some news that plans are in the works for a remake of âAngel Heartâ.
I don’t mind the idea of remakes. There have been some good ones. I know it makes a lot of people crazy, but if someone wants to remake a film – because it speaks to them or they want to update it – I dont really care. I myself would never see a remake of Angel Heart (I mean honestly – why bother?) – or any of my other favorite films … but you know, a film has to stand on its own – and the market will decide. If you’re gonna remake Casablanca, you’d better have a damn good reason.
But I don’t think that certain things are “sacred” and people shouldn’t even try, just on principle.
I, as an audience member, feel no pressure to see such things – especially if it’s a remake of something that I consider to be perfect as is.
I am, however, baffled by the impulse behind many remakes.
Some (like You’ve Got Mail) make total sense; to update an old film into today’s technology … a good idea! The movie wasn’t as good as the original – but I totally understood the impulse of that remake.
But other impulses seem pointless to me. The director seems lazy or pretentious or overly self-involved.
Actually, this all reminds me of an amusing line from Tina Fey when she was doing the SNL news. This was during the Ben Affleck-Jennifer Lopez mania and there had been talk of them re-making Casablanca.
Tina Fey said, “This remake would be for those who saw the original and wished it was terrible.”
You know, it’s interesting because you see kinds of attitudes surrounding remaking songs. People take such an affront to it (I’ve been guilty!), but know that everyone does it all the time because it’s so easy to do. With so many Hollywood remakes having come out and still slated to come out, I wonder how audience reaction is going to evolve?
I am really with you about impulse. For example, and I completely LOVE your Steve Martin post below and LOVE Steve Martin, but was a Pink Panther remake necessary?
Well, I can understand that impulse, though. It was a terrible movie, and I personally adore the original too much to pay a remake any mind – but I understand Steve Martin’s desire to play that character. It might not be “necessary” but I don’t think a remake needs to be necessary, per se. Martin’s sensibility is very Peter Sellers-esque, absurd and mannered – and it could have been a good fit, if it had been done well. But it sucked.
Another thing about Rourke’s performance:
When he goes down in the elevator at the very end you only see him briefly, it’s so dark … but that is Johnny Favorite going down, not Harry Angel. It’s hard to explain, it’s so brief – but you see him, and that is NOT the guy we’ve seen for the whole movie. There’s a coldness there, ice in his veins … we have been hearing about Johnny Favorite thru the whole film, that he was “the closest thing to evil so-and-so had ever met” – that he had dealings with the devil, was ruthless … and there he is, going down in the elevator.
It’s such a short scene – not even a scene really – it’s intercut with the credits rolling, so you might even miss it – but Rourke is most definitely playing something very specific in that 3 seconds we see him. He’s not a fearful “Harry Angel” going unwillingly to someone else’s fate. Johnny Favorite is back now, he’s the guy going down, and he’s cold as ice. So good, so specific. That’s the kind of talent he has. Nothing gets by him.
Oh, and Cullen – about remaking songs: I often wonder when exactly that became a no-no. Was it the 60s, 70s? Or later? Because if you think about the great singers – the Frank Sinatras, the Ella Fitzgeralds – these people all sang the same songs, the “standards”. It was not considered bad form to attempt to do your own version of “Mack the Knife” – as a matter of fact, it was expected of you – to see how YOU would do it, to put your own stamp on it.
Even now – I think that the “standards” can make or break a singer. I have often wished that some of the big singers out there now would do an album of standards – I think it would be really interesting.
There was a great Cole Porter tribute album that came out in the early 90s – I think it was to benefit AIDS research, if I’m not mistaken – and all these famous rock stars covered Cole Porter songs – and I absolutely LOVE the album. Red Hot and Blue I think it’s called?? It’s SUCH a fun album, to hear these people put their “spin” on these old standards.
I actually wish more people would re-make songs – there are some that are out there that I actually prefer to the originals!
Sheila, I love to hear contemporary artists singing the standards. Music should be remade. Tony Bennett made an album singing duets with contemporary rock or country artists. Heard Sting singing a couple of standards, it was great.
As for remaking movies, some works are just made to be remade. I think there’s an entire cottage industry built around remaking Pride and Prejudice and just about all of Austen and Bronte. No problem with that, although I do think they’ve gone a bit overboard lately. Other films, the ones that leave some indelible impression should be left alone. You mention Casablanca, a perfect example. There are a great many more, “The Third Man” comes to mind, that are too iconic, too steeped in mood, place, time, to be remade.
too iconic, too steeped in mood, place, time, to be remade.
Absolutely! Some films (and performances) are just so themselves that I really question why someone would want to re-do it.
Unless you are trying to modernize a story (like the You’ve Got Mail example) … I don’t see the point. I could see there being a “remake” of Only Angels Have Wings – only focusing, instead, on the early astronauts, the experimental pilots pushing towards the sound barrier … That could work. I think Only Angels Have Wings, as itself, is perfection … but there are possibilities there for the latest technology to have something NEW to say about that old story.
But if you have nothing new to say or to bring to it: why do you want to do it?? Just let it be!!
And then there was Gus Van Sant’s shot-by-shot recreation of Psycho which just showed, in the most mysterious way, that it’s not the SHOTS that make the movie … it’s the man who CHOOSES the shots. You can’t capture magic. You can try to re-create it … but again: the re-creation feels like a re-creation. Even with the shot-by-shot replication, it doesn’t have the same feel.
Again, I understand the IMPULSE there in Gus Van Sant – but I feel like it was a film-school experiment (very valid in its way … trying to enter the mind of Hitchcock) … but the whole thing seemed pointless to me.
I’d completely forgotten about “Psycho” – and I guess that’s the point! Seeing something like that is beyond pointless. Throughout the remake I was comparing/remembering/seeing the original cast. Whenever I hear “Psycho” mentioned I see, hear, remember, the original. The remake is not only off the radar, it’s off the map.
Right?
All the remake did was re-assert the brilliance of the original.
If you’re gonna do a remake – bring something NEW to it, for God’s sake!!
Have had to scroll down here, past Marilyn, several times. It’s getting more difficult. Did some scanning along the way. Looking forward to your take on the next Marilyn, or the next big star. More often than not they turn out to be the next Pia Zadora.
Another great example is this year’s re-make of The Women. Just did not work. It came off as petty rather than ferocious and the wit was somehow missing.
You had better step your game up if you try to go head to head with a beloved movie like The Women that entire nations of people know by heart!
George – not sure about “the next Marilyn” but I think that Rachel McAdams is the next big giant star. That’s a future Oscar-winner if ever I saw one. I LOVE her.
And yeah – that was part of my point in the giant Marilyn piece: when the industry tries to decide who is “the next” – well, anything – more often than not, it is Pia Zadora (hahahaha). But the public is the most powerful arbiter of all – and when the public decides there is very little that will sway them. You cannot manufacture love like that. Many try. The folks pushing Gwyneth Paltrow forward tried – and while she had a moment where it seemed like it was the tipping point and she was going to cross over into true STAR status – it didn’t stick.
Once a generation an actor or actress comes along who is anointed by the public. Back to our Angel Heart discussion: I feel that Mickey Rourke was one of those people. And witness the good will that surrounds him still – even after years of being an unpleasant violent weirdo who DIDN’T ACT. My sense is that people are happy to see him back. He has been missed.
But I think Rachel McAdams is THE one to be watching right now. Scarlett Johanson should be afraid. Very very afraid.
“wit was somehow missing”
Don’t want to seem harsh but so was the talent – comparatively speaking. Apologies to Annette Bening.
Absolutely. It was painful to watch.