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

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]

add a comment to this page:

Your post will be captioned "posted by anonymous,"
or you may enter a guest username below:

Line breaks work. HTML tags will be stripped.