I’ve got to stop believing the purists
October 21st, 2007
Even though I tend to shy away from scary movies of any kind, I’m strangely attracted to the Hannibal Lecter series. I’ve seen Silence of the Lambs many times (one of the few Jodie Foster films I actually like), and I’ve recently fallen in love with Red Dragon (whose spectacular cast includes Edward Norton, Emily Watson, Ralph Fiennes, Anthony Hopkins, Mary-Louise Parker, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Harvey Keitel).
So I thought I’d give Manhunter—the original film adaption of the Red Dragon book—a chance. The purists on Netflix, after all, said the performances were subtler, the film was truer to the book, the suspense was intense. I rented it and was sorely disappointed. The soundtrack was mid-1980s hokey. The performances were dull (and I’ve seen all of those actors do better) and felt like high schoolers reading Shakespeare or the Lucas-induced robotic readings from the Star Wars prequels. There was very little suspense. I couldn’t get into this film. I kept thinking about how Red Dragon did it better.
Why do I keep falling for the lines these purists spout? With only a few exceptions (Psycho, for example), most remakes I’ve seen have been better than the originals. I like An Affair to Remember, Sommersby, and The Vanishing better than the originals. Blasphemy, I know, but that’s been my experience.
Maybe I’m not discerning enough. Maybe these purists have more refined tastes than I have. I may just be representative of “the masses.” Still, give me Anthony Hopkins’ over-the-top Lecter any day over dead-pan Brian Cox’s performance in Manhunter. If I want to see Brian Cox acting well, I’ll watch The Boxer or X-Men II, thanks.
October 21st, 2007 at 2:54 pm
I say the same thing about folks who hate Titanic, but then that is just me ;-) I guess it also depends on what one hopes to get out of the move experience. I am a total escapist and am just glad someone else took the time to try to entertain me for a few hours. While I do appreciate the occasional movie that will create more thought and opportunties for reflection (Hotel Rwanda, Dogam, Jesus of Montreal, and Wedding Crashers ;-) most of the time, my baseline is, don’t let me fall asleep.
October 23rd, 2007 at 12:41 pm
I think it’s a combination in your case. Old movies are sometimes great, but sometimes they just don’t stand the test of time. If you ever see the original French version of City of Angels, you may actually like the new version, it was that bad.
But sometimes you just have to put on your oldschool blinders. The music was 1980′s cheesy? I’m sure it was, but it wasn’t cheesy in the 80′s. It’s like Starwars. You see it now, it’s just a red line for that laser, nothing really special. But at the time, the special effects were amazing.
And I think Reyes-Chow’s post is accurate too, it really depends on what you want to get out of it. Take Planet of the Apes. The original was a film, for entertainment naturally, but also wanted to make an important political statement about the dangers of war, our tensions with other countries, particularly the Soviet Union, and the horror of atomic war.
Now take the new, Tim Burton Planet of the Apes. Near as I can tell, it wanted to make a lot of money with super realistic ape-suites. There’s some over-the-top animal-rights activism in it as well, but the mood is totally blown when he leaves the monkey chick for ye old generic busty blonde, and the fact that he kisses her. Yeah, animal rights and all that, but come on, no animal-lovin’ if you please. It’s hard to take the film seriously becuase it’s so … Hollywood.
If you went into it looking for an action film, you (kind of) got that and a little plot on the side. If you went into it looking for a profound statement about current political events, you were either disapointed or went out and voted for Bob Barker as a write in president thanks to his “spay or nueter” message.