I liked Point of No Return better than La Femme Nikita (the movie). Bridget Fonda is sexy and Harvey Keitel scary as The Cleaner.
Re the various monster movies:
I've only seen bits and pieces of Herzog's Nosferatu, but is it really better than Murnau's?
Aren't the Morrissey/Warhol films more in the nature of spoofs, or goofs, relative to the Whale and Browning?
I haven't seen the silent Jekyll/Hyde, but the 1932 version with Frederick March is AMAZING--way better than the Spencer Tracy/Ingrid Bergman version.
Speaking of horror and new films, I'm looking forward to Phone Booth, which was pulled from release during the All Sniper All the Time media convulsion. The script is by Larry Cohen, the warped mind behind the Branded and Invaders TV shows in the '60s and a string of great cult films in the '70s and '80s (It's Alive!, God Told Me To, Q, The Stuff).
My only contribution to the Melville discussion is to say I read that Jordan sentimentalized Bob the Gambler and gave it a happy ending or something so I probably won't see it.
I'm sorry to hear that criticism of Jordans' TGThief. I'll probably see it anyway, and I'll probably be disappointed.
Lately, I've been thinking that "re-make" is less apt a term for these films. Sometimes, attention is called to the fact that they are re-makes, to publicize/legitimize them. But this is happening less and less, because much of today's audience doesn't know the original films, so using familiarity with the original for publicity doesn't work, and legitimization rests on familiarity with the original work: Many folks who are familiar with the original films are taken aback with the idea of tampering with the original.
Maybe it's more meaningful to think of "re-makes" as films that use the originals as source material. Most use the original material one-to-one, but some use it more artfully. This is done all the time in literature--"Jane Eyre" as the source for "Wide Sargasso Sea" is an obvious example.
I think Todd Haynes used this literary strategy of using an old work as source material in "Far From Heaven," despite my criticisms of it. Warhol also is in that realm of using the source as a departure point, not a roadmap.
I could drone on but I have to earn some dollares now. . .
I think it depends on the film. As you point out, Warhol and FFH use the source material as a departure point. Mabye the Richard Gere Breathless would fall under the moniker of re-make? (It's been 20+ years since I last saw Herzog's Nosferatu but I remember it as being pretty faithfull to the original, just four times as long)
I like the term "literary stratagy" for these films but in the case of FFH I prefer the label high-concept as I think of Haynes as the gay Oliver Stone.
|
Re the various monster movies:
I've only seen bits and pieces of Herzog's Nosferatu, but is it really better than Murnau's?
Aren't the Morrissey/Warhol films more in the nature of spoofs, or goofs, relative to the Whale and Browning?
I haven't seen the silent Jekyll/Hyde, but the 1932 version with Frederick March is AMAZING--way better than the Spencer Tracy/Ingrid Bergman version.
Speaking of horror and new films, I'm looking forward to Phone Booth, which was pulled from release during the All Sniper All the Time media convulsion. The script is by Larry Cohen, the warped mind behind the Branded and Invaders TV shows in the '60s and a string of great cult films in the '70s and '80s (It's Alive!, God Told Me To, Q, The Stuff).
My only contribution to the Melville discussion is to say I read that Jordan sentimentalized Bob the Gambler and gave it a happy ending or something so I probably won't see it.
- tom moody 4-07-2003 7:12 am
I'm sorry to hear that criticism of Jordans' TGThief. I'll probably see it anyway, and I'll probably be disappointed.
Lately, I've been thinking that "re-make" is less apt a term for these films. Sometimes, attention is called to the fact that they are re-makes, to publicize/legitimize them. But this is happening less and less, because much of today's audience doesn't know the original films, so using familiarity with the original for publicity doesn't work, and legitimization rests on familiarity with the original work: Many folks who are familiar with the original films are taken aback with the idea of tampering with the original.
Maybe it's more meaningful to think of "re-makes" as films that use the originals as source material. Most use the original material one-to-one, but some use it more artfully. This is done all the time in literature--"Jane Eyre" as the source for "Wide Sargasso Sea" is an obvious example.
I think Todd Haynes used this literary strategy of using an old work as source material in "Far From Heaven," despite my criticisms of it. Warhol also is in that realm of using the source as a departure point, not a roadmap.
I could drone on but I have to earn some dollares now. . .
- bunny 4-07-2003 9:50 pm [add a comment]
I think it depends on the film. As you point out, Warhol and FFH use the source material as a departure point. Mabye the Richard Gere Breathless would fall under the moniker of re-make? (It's been 20+ years since I last saw Herzog's Nosferatu but I remember it as being pretty faithfull to the original, just four times as long)
I like the term "literary stratagy" for these films but in the case of FFH I prefer the label high-concept as I think of Haynes as the gay Oliver Stone.
- steve 4-07-2003 10:31 pm [add a comment]