Why We Remake: The Politics, Economics and Emotions of Film and TV Remakes [1° ed.] 0367419130, 9780367419134

Citation preview

With cinema seemingly ever more obsessed with recycling itself, this is a timely as well as exuberant, learned and massively detailed exploration of that least prestigious form of adaptation – the movie remake. With examples from silent cinema to Bollywood and comic book franchises, Lauren Rosewarne expertly analyses different kinds of remake (upgrades, nostalgic homages, fashionable reboots) and shows that, in spite of critical disdain, remakes have been central to film history. Why We Remake is a must read for all students of adaptation. – Professor Ian Hunter, De Montfort University, author of Cult Film as a Guide to Life: Fandom, Adaptation, and Identity Lauren Rosewarne’s illuminating book challenges conventional wisdom about remakes in general and American remakes in particular. Drawing from a wealth of film reviews and studies, she adeptly problematizes the prejudices towards remakes and foregrounds the financial and artistic stakes in producing them. Throughout her study Rosewarne emphasizes the extent to which remakes are indeed adaptations that allow creators to incorporate the most recent cinematographic technologies and address contemporary social, cultural, and political concerns through the lens of familiar storylines. In the end, Why We Remake asks us to question our own presuppositions about what a remake is and does. – Professor Anne Duggan, Wayne State University, author of Queer Enchantments: Gender, Sexuality, and Class in the Fairy-Tale Cinema of Jacques Demy Lauren Rosewarne’s latest study of cinema remakes offers a fresh, compelling perspective on remaking, among film study’s most relevant areas of research. Providing a typology of the various motives that move those in the industry to expend their energies in a form of repetition, Rosewarne’s Why We Remake helps explain the appeal to filmmakers and filmgoers alike of new versions of something old, usefully identifying their

sources of originality. Her book offers an accessible discussion of important issues, along with well-handled analyses of individual films. – Professor R. Barton Palmer, Clemson University, editor (with Amanda Ann Klein) of Cycles, Sequels, Spin-offs, Remakes, and Reboots: Multiplicities in Film and Television Lauren Rosewarne’s thoroughly researched book explores the remake’s reputation for commercializing, cannibalizing, and corrupting the films it revisits, as well as the recurring pleasures the remake provides its many audiences. She offers a kaleidoscopic and incisive approach to a topic of (literally) perennial interest. – Professor Tricia Welsch, Bowdoin College, author of Gloria Swanson: Ready for Her Close-Up In an era of incessant remakes, Lauren Rosewarne offers a wide-ranging, multidisciplinary guide to a film phenomenon more visible than ever today. Why We Remake offers six persuasive and well-illustrated answers to why films are remade, from corporate greed and building better blockbusters to cultural fads and the invocation of nostalgia. – Professor Elyce Rae Helford, Middle Tennessee State University, editor of The Woman Fantastic in Contemporary American Media Culture and author of What Price Hollywood?: Gender and Sex in the Films of George Cukor Richly detailed and persuasively argued, Why We Remake provides an engaging and comprehensive analysis of the varying motivations that prompt film remakes. A valuable resource for anyone interested in contemporary cinema and the forces that shape it. – Professor Leonard Koos, University of Mary Washington, co-editor (with Jennifer Forrest) of Dead Ringers: The Remake in Theory and Practice That once critically dismissed minority phenomena of remaking movies, Rosewarne convincingly argues, has expanded to engulf, and so characterise, mainstream film production. Sharp originality is dissolved into warming nostalgia, and excoriating film classics are defanged and gentrified. Just try finding something genuinely new at your local multiplex! So in Why We Remake, Rosewarne deftly delineates remake tendencies and categories, situating each in industrial, political and cultural contexts, and exploring their counterintuitive appeal and popularity. This is a pivotal intervention into any discussion of the lineaments of contemporary popular culture, in the context of postmodernity, and beyond. – Dr. Benjamin Halligan, University of Wolverhampton, author of Desires for Reality: Radicalism and Revolution in Western European Film

Why We Remake not only answers the big question What justifies a remake? but other intriguing questions like Why are audiences drawn to remakes? and How do economic factors figure into a remake’s necessity – or success? In six well-researched chapters, Lauren Rosewarne provides some surprising, insightful answers. Why We Remake adds an important new volume to film and television criticism by exploring the industrial and creative impetus behind remakes. A wide range of multidisciplinary popular or academic sources and plenty of film references make this book an enjoyable must-read. – Professor Lynnette Porter, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, author of The Doctor Who Franchise: American Influence, Fan Culture and the Spinoffs More cynical accounts of the Hollywood remake describe a creatively bankrupt industry commodifying nostalgia for a dimwitted public. Why We Remake is a welcome corrective to that narrative. Exhaustively researched and deftly argued, Rosewarne takes the industry (and the spectator) seriously, and examines the remake as a complex network of economic, artistic, and emotional investments. – Dr. Andrew Scahill, University of Colorado Denver, author of The Revolting Child in Horror Cinema: Youth Rebellion and Queer Spectatorship Lauren Rosewarne sets out to answer the question of “why bother” remaking and finds an array of possible answers, from creative remakes to conservative approaches to new and untested material. Drawing from discussions of industry, audiences and media products, Rosewarne explores the motivations for a stunning range of remakes of both films and TV programmes. Her illuminating analyses examine current media recycling practices and the relationship between audiences and producers, offering an important contribution to film and media studies. – Dr. Jonathan Evans, University of Portsmouth, author of The Many Voices of Lydia Davis: Translation, Rewriting, Intertextuality and editor (with Fruela Fernandez) of The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Politics Rich with examples and detail, this book offers a lively analysis of the myriad factors behind the much maligned but increasingly popular culture of the screen remake. – Associate Professor Anna Potter, University of the Sunshine Coast, author of Creativity, Culture and Commerce: Producing Australian Children’s Television with Public Value This accessible and wide-ranging study invites us to think more lucidly and expansively about the whys and wherefores of film and television remakes.

Analyzing an extensive body of writing by scholars, reviewers and fans, Rosewarne expertly skewers the unquestioned assumptions and fallacies that abound in discussions of the screen remake and explores how public discourse about remakes intersects with the shifting economic imperatives, aesthetic ideals and cultural anxieties of our time. – Dr. Stephen Harper, University of Portsmouth, author of Madness, Power and the Media: Class, Gender and Race in Popular Representations of Mental Distress Exploring the political, economic, and emotional motivation behind film remakes, Rosewarne’s concise and comprehensive study takes her reader on a journey through the multi-faceted landscape of this elemental dimension of cinema. With her focus on the prevalence and pleasure of the remake in a variety of contexts, Rosewarne aptly elucidates the inherent and creative value of remake production. – Professor Linda Belau, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, editor of Horror Television in the Age of Consumption: Binging on Fear

Why We Remake

This examination of film and television remakes focuses explicitly on why – since the dawn of cinema – studios have remade screen media over and over again. Each chapter provides insight into the business of Hollywood, the motivations of filmmakers and also the pleasures for audiences and offers in depth explanations for the whys of remaking. Utilizing an interdisciplinary approach, the author draws from existing literature, close readings of films and a dataset of hundreds of film reviews to provide a taxonomy and deep-dive into six unique rationales for remaking premade titles: • • • • • •

The better remake. The economic remake. The nostalgic remake. The Americanized remake. The creative remake. The fashionable remake.

This unique examination of the industrial activity of remaking will be of great interest to academics and students working in the areas of film and adaptation studies, narrative, media discourse, transmedia storytelling, American cinema and cultural studies. Lauren Rosewarne is Senior Lecturer in the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Melbourne, Australia, and is an expert in sex, gender, media and popular culture. This is Lauren’s eleventh book. More information can be found at www.laurenrosewarne.com

Why We Remake The Politics, Economics and Emotions of Film and TV Remakes Lauren Rosewarne

First published 2020 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2020 Lauren Rosewarne The right of Lauren Rosewarne to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN: 978-0-367-41913-4 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-367-81683-4 (ebk) Typeset in Baskerville by Apex CoVantage, LLC

Contents

Acknowledgments

x

Introduction

1

1 The bigger and better remake

9

2 The economic remake

39

3 The nostalgic remake

80

4 The Americanized remake

127

5 The creative remake

173

6 The fashionable remake

228

Conclusion

279

Bibliography Index

282

333

Acknowledgments

With thanks to Suzanne Richardson, Richa Kohli and Sukriti Pandey at Routledge. Thanks also to Professor Peter Rutland and the Allbritton Center for the Study of Public Life at Wesleyan University, who kindly hosted me as a Visiting Associate Professor during the completion of this manuscript.

Introduction

Of the broad range of criticisms leveled against remakes, a popular accusa­ tion made by critics and commentators is that such material fails to justify its existence. This line of attack usually takes two forms: a remake is overtly accused of being unnecessary, alternatively critics ask why bother or what’s the point? In his North County Times review of the horror film Friday the 13th (2009) for example, Dan Bennett asks “Does the world need a re-imagining” of the 1980 film?1 Alyssa Rosenberg, in The Atlantic, reviewed Being Human (2011–2014) – the US remake of the British sci-fi series (2008–2013) – and commented, “Nothing about the Being Human remake is necessary. The original show isn’t gone before its time. It’s not a good concept executed disastrously, or even poorly.”2 During the writing of this book, Disney’s blockbuster The Lion King (2019) – the remake of the 1994 animation – was released, and several reviewers were quick to claim that the new film hadn’t earned its production. In Peter Debruge’s Variety review for example, he posits that the film “raises the inevitable question, ‘Why bother?’ ”3 In Chris Knight’s National Post article, he punnily contends that the 2019 film poses “one mane question: why?”4 Oggs Cruz in Rappler dubs the new Lion King as bloated and unnecessary,5 Kristen Lopez in Gizmodo reviewed it as “gor­ geous but completely unnecessary”6 and unnecessary is repeated widely in commentary.7 Robert Moran, in The Sydney Morning Herald, mentions both The Lion King and Mulan (2020) – the live-action remake of the 1998 ani­ mation – and asks, “Why do these remakes exist, who are they for and why are we watching them?”8 In an Independent review of The Lion King it is con­ tended that “technological advances apart, there’s no reason at all for it.”9 Versions of this same criticism are apparent in commentary on a range of remakes, for example: • In a review of the thriller The Truth About Charlie (2002) – a remake of Charade (1963) – Jane Horwitz in the Buffalo News asks, “what’s the point?”10 • Discussing Alfie (2004) – a remake of the 1966 romcom – Anthony Quinn in The Independent asks “what is the point of this movie?”11

2

Introduction

• In Rob Young’s Cinelinx review of The Omen (2006) – a remake of the 1976 horror film – he writes: “If you’ve seen the original version . . . and then you watch the remake from 2006, you have to ask ‘Why did they even bother?’ The remake was barely even a remake. It was a shot-for­ shot, scene-for-scene copy of the original.”12 • Paddy Shennan in the Liverpool Echo asks, “what’s the point?”13 of the crime-drama Minder (2009), a film adaptation of the British television series (1979–1994). • In Walt Belcher’s Tampa Tribune review of Carrie (2013) – the remake of the 1976 horror film – he asks, “The big question is: Why bother?”14 • In a review of the crime-drama The Rockford Files (2010) – an adaptation of the television series (1974–1980) – Tim Goodman in the Houston Chronicle asks, “why bother”?15 • In James Verniere’s Boston Herald review of the horror film The Wolfman (2010) – a remake of The Wolf Man (1941) – he calls it a “why-bother remake.”16 • In Dave Rosenthal’s Baltimore Sun review of Total Recall (2012) – a remake of the 1990 sci-fi film – he asks, “why bother?”17 In Richard Cor­ liss’s Time magazine review of the same remake he poses: “Questions, questions nip at Len Wiseman’s Total Recall like so many rats at the feet of a sleeping hobo. The big why is, Why bother?”18 • In Brian Moylan’s Guardian review of the crime-drama Gracepoint (2014b) – the US remake of the British Broadchurch (2013–2017) – he asks: “why bother”?19 • In Tim Walker’s Independent review of Point Break (2015) – the remake of the 1991 crime-drama – he asks, “what’s the point, dude?”20 • In a review of Poltergeist (2015) – the remake of the 1982 horror film – Liz Braun in the St. Thomas Times-Journal asks: “So here’s the obvious question with a movie remake like Poltergeist: Why bother?”21 • In Alissa Wilkinson’s Vox review of the crime-drama Murder on the Orient Express (2017) – another film adaptation of the 1934 Agatha Christie novel, first filmed in 1974 – she asks: “Why bother?”22 • In Ralph McLean’s Sunday Life review of Dumbo (2019) – the live-action remake of the 1941 animation – he posits: “Dumbo throws up more questions than answers. The first one is probably, why bother at all?”23 • In a Moviehole review of the comedy The Hustle (2019) – a remake of Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (1988), itself a remake of Bedtime Story (1964) – K.T Simpson asks, “When you’ve got a classic film like Dirty Rotten Scoun­ drels with a top cast of Steve Martin and Michael Caine – it begs the question: why bother remaking it?”24 • In Matthew Lucas’s Dispatch review of Aladdin (2019) – the live-action remake of the 1992 animation – he asks, “What’s the point?”25 The same criticism is expressed through accusations of remakes being point­ less, irrelevant or uninspired,26 with the undercurrent being that the remake

Introduction 3 has somehow failed to prove itself. In an article for Politico, Simon Abrams observes that “[r]emakes have to work harder to justify their existence than any other kind of film, harder, even, than literary adaptations.”27 This book specifically hones in on this issue of justification, asking why films are remade – notably amid such widespread negative discourse – and propos­ ing a range of interdisciplinary answers. Remakes are under a unique kind of pressure that rarely gets directed at other screen content: such productions are expected to make a convincing case to audiences that they are worth seeing even though their content is not “new.” This burden is a distinctly screen phenomenon without an equiva­ lent in other entertainment media. We don’t, for example, consider each performance of a play as a remake. Film theorists Rüdiger Heinze and Lucia Krämer make the same point in the context of music performances: New productions and performances of a symphony by, say, Beethoven, are usually neither called remakes nor re-adaptations (which they are), nor are they typically accused of being mere copies of previous versions of the same piece.28 While most remake criticisms such as those listed earlier don’t elaborate on the accusation of pointlessness or unjustifiability – presuming, seemingly, that readers would just agree that it’s perfectly acceptable to condemn a remake on such grounds – occasionally such an allegation is fleshed out, whereby possibly justifiable circumstances for reproduction are hinted at (even if the specific remake in question is not considered as such an exam­ ple). Rosenberg, quoted earlier, suggests that a television show cancelled “before its time” might justify a revisiting, ditto a good concept poorly exe­ cuted. Young – also quoted earlier – flags that the shot-for-shot duplica­ tion apparent in The Omen (2006) was central in its unjustifiability, thus suggesting that a creative reimagining could, conversely, make reproduc­ tion worthwhile. In A.A. Dowd’s A/V Film discussion of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) – a remake of the 1974 horror film – he suggests that a film looking dated or losing its scare factor might warrant reproduction: “Plenty of horror remakes are unnecessary; we didn’t need a new Texas Chainsaw Massacre, because we still have the old one, and it’s lost none of its nerveshredding, sleep-destroying power.”29 In Alan Sepinwall’s book The Revo­ lution Was Televised, he expands on this point, arguing that remakes need to improve upon a predecessor: “Hollywood has a bad habit of remaking greatness when there’s no upside in it. You cannot make a better Psycho [1960] than Alfred Hitchcock did, so why bother?”30 Implicit in Sepinwall’s comment is the belief that remakes can’t improve on excellence and that attempting to do so is pointless, something echoed by several writers. Clar­ ence Moore in his discussion of Psycho (1998), for example, argues: “What’s the point of remaking a movie if you’re not going to improve on the orig­ inal?”31 Bill Keveney in USA Today poses this question in broader terms:

4

Introduction

“Why reproduce what’s already been done, particularly originals held in such high regard?”32 Paul Mavis also asks this question in his analysis of the romance Second Bureau (1936), a remake of the French film Deuxième bureau (Second Bureau) (1935): “if you can’t do any better than the original, why bother?”33 Turning these arguments around, therefore, seemingly an occa­ sion when a remake could be worthwhile, centers on a (re)production that succeeds in improving on the old. Reimagining a film widely perceived as bad would thus be a good starting point. The “justifiable” occasions for remaking discussed thus far, however, pro­ vide only part of the answer to the central question of this book. Remake rationales such as a lost or destroyed print – as frequently occurred in the case of many silent films34 – or if a new film fixes or builds upon its predeces­ sor, ignores the reality that there are, in fact, a deluge of explanations as to why media is remade, many of which have nothing to do with lost prints or poor production values. In this volume, I examine the economic, political and emotional reasons for why previously filmed content is revisited, and I cluster my answers into six categories and, thus, six chapters. Chapter 1: The Bigger and Better Remake introduces the most obvious rea­ son why a film or television series is remade: to improve on what’s gone before. This chapter explores the blockbuster model of contemporary filmmaking whereby old titles are repeatedly revisited in line with Hollywood’s preoccupation with “event cinema.” A key component of blockbusters is big budgets: this chapter examines money spent on new technology (including sound and color in eras past, and CGI and 3D more recently) as well as on all-star casting. The objective of such productions is making a film that is enhanced through its expansion. Cautionary notes on the subjectivity of “better” in the context of filmmaking are also provided. Chapter 2: The Economic Remake examines the role of money in reproduc­ tion, presenting the case of a risk-averse Hollywood – but also an industry that is very willing to spend exorbitant sums if a project feels like a “sure(r) thing.” Hollywood’s desire to recapture lightning in a bottle is a key driver in revisiting previously filmed stories. I explore remakes that succeed in making money and also investigate the box office flops. Risk-aversion on the part of audiences is analyzed, as are debates around diminishing returns. The notion of remakes not only helping to make money through the box office but also through populating a studio’s catalogue and reignit­ ing interest in a predecessor are also discussed. Also explored are remakes helping studios to save money through script recycling and the increased return on investment that comes from utilizing creative material across sev­ eral properties. The ability to take advantage of both pre-existing titles and audience awareness is examined as related to media branding and mar­ keting, and debates around remakes destroying competition are explored: both as related to legacy and, more commonly, with remakes becoming the definitive presentation of story.

Introduction 5 Chapter 3: The Nostalgic Remake explores the integral role of looking backwards in contemporary media (re)production, whereby popular cul­ ture provides audiences an opportunity to go home again through a new incarnation of a tale they’re already familiar with. Disney’s commitment to remaking its animation back catalogue, for example, is heavily motivated by the studio’s understanding of audience fervor for consuming media that references their youth, and the keen awareness that money can be made from facilitating this. More broadly the repeated filming of fairy tales, clas­ sic literature and classic film and television productions illustrates the wide­ spread appreciation of well-told stories, even if such stories have appeared on screen many times previously. An investigation is conducted into why audiences keep paying to see remakes (often in spite of vocal complaints about them), and the range of pleasures proffered by new spins on old stories is scoped. Also examined are the mixed blessings of nostalgia: while the pleasures for audiences may be obvious, the reproduction of a beloved film or television series can also prompt unfavorable comparisons, and instead of being perceived as a better production, can motivate audiences to recall how much more they enjoyed the predecessor. The notions of permanent nostalgia, revisionist (and sanitized) history and the half-lives of productions are also investigated. The chapter ends with a brief discussion of remakes that eschew nostalgia in favor of making a film that is intended to be consumed as an entirely new production. Chapter 4: The Americanized Remake proposes that a key motive behind remaking is to produce a new American film with American stars and Ameri­ can settings. While this can involve non-English language movies remade in English to increase their accessibility, it also involves US remakes of Englishlanguage content from countries like the UK and Australia. In this chapter I explore the politics of Americanization – oftentimes used as a euphemism for American imperialism and American cultural hegemony – and investi­ gate some of the stereotypes about American productions and American audiences, examining the role of factors like subtitles and accents in moti­ vating reimaginings of international content. The commercial nature of US film and television is often contrasted with the assumed artistry of world media: resultantly, American remakes are frequently accused of being dumbed down, sanitized and having stupidly happy endings. Americani­ zation, of course, can also be synonymous with Hollywoodization, whereby the US incarnation is enhanced through higher production values, better looking casts and a faster-paced, more slickly presented plot. This chapter ends with a discussion of transnational remakes produced by countries other than the US to highlight that such activity is not exclusively an American phenomenon. Chapter 5: The Creative Remake examines the artistic and innovative motivations propelling filmmakers to revisit a title. So often remakes are accused of exemplifying Hollywood’s terminal lack of ideas whereby past

6

Introduction

properties are remade and international ideas stolen to compensate for the industry’s lack of creativity: this chapter provides the counter case, contend­ ing that remakes can actually be creative, even when their stories aren’t totally “new.” This discussion includes an investigation of autoremakes – where directors remake their own content – as well as the content of other filmmakers in an attempt to put their own unique stamp on an alreadyfilmed story. Remakes considered as “better” are examined to identify fac­ tors that help a reproduction not only succeed at the box office but also be construed as a creative reworking. Such creativity can involve remaking bad films or expanding on an existing property with deeper characteriza­ tion and a reimagined setting. Remakes also become creative through more wholesale changes. This can involve swapping the genre – turning a thriller, for example, into a musical – or by targeting an entirely new audience, per­ haps re-adapting a piece of classic literature as an animated children’s film. Also explored – and problematized – is the assumed good of creativity and the idea of originality as fetishized. Chapter 6: The Fashionable Remake explores the harnessing of fads as a key driver in media reproduction. I explore trends in genre – such as musi­ cals and biblical epics in the 1950s or horror films in the 2000s – whereby the whims of audience appetites are central motivations in remaking. Also examined are different happenings in the zeitgeist – for example cultural revolutions like evolving race and gender relations and social issues such as HIV/AIDS, climate change and violence – that are harnessed to update material for a new audience, enabling an old story to seem fresh and cutting-edge. Renewed interest in certain subjects like the military and surveillance emerging after 9/11, for example, saw the remaking of Cold War-era media. Similarly, the era of MeToo and the Trump presidency ush­ ered in a reinvigorated interest in women’s stories, thus seeing feminist and female-centric media remade to capitalize on the zeitgeist. A key theme of this volume is the negative discourse surrounding remakes, whereby condemning commentary and discourse exists in the same medi­ ascape as constant reproduction. Steven Zeitchik in The Washington Post uses the term “grumble gap” – a phrase echoed at various junctures in this volume – referring to the dynamic whereby remakes are endlessly com­ plained about and yet are often heartily consumed.35 This grumbling and, more broadly, this tale of negativity, is exposed in Why We Remake through reference to hundreds of film and television reviews, which give important insight into the cultural chatter surrounding media (re)production and illustrating a conflicted and confused mediascape whereby the objectives of studios and the wants of audiences sometimes clash and other times mesh, often with little logic as to why. Aside from providing insight into the negative discourse surrounding remakes, reviews serve to help populate the list of films and television series drawn upon in this volume, most of which are never advertised as such. It is important, before embarking on my discussion of the whys of remak­ ing, to briefly establish some definitions and parameters. In my 2019 book

Introduction 7 Sex and Sexuality in Modern Screen Media Remakes, I devoted my introduc­ tory chapter to explaining how I define remake and justifying the necessity for a scholarly investigation of them. Rather than rehash that same discus­ sion here, I will just provide some key information. My favored definition is the simple one offered by film theorist Thomas Leitch: remakes are just “new versions of older movies.”36 While I stretch this definition to include television, the gist is the same: I discuss the filming of stories that have already appeared on screen. This is not a book that attempts to uncover a root fairy tale or biblical story from where a plot derives, nor am I inter­ ested in the intertextual links between films as is examined in much fas­ cinating postmodern scholarship. Rather, I focus on the act of remaking both as an industrial activity and as a creative expression whereby a pre­ viously filmed story finds a new life – or new lives – on screen at a later date. This book (almost) completely eschews discussions around fidel­ ity and originality and instead takes a step back from analyzing the film texts themselves – something I do elsewhere37 – to hone in on the whys of media (re)production. While adaptations – from literature or theater – are discussed in this volume, their inclusion is predicated on such stories having been filmed at least once for the screen and then being filmed again (something sometimes termed re-adaptation). Adaptation is also relevant to this discussion as describing reproduction between different media, for example, where a film is remade as a television series or vice versa. (Such productions have also been described as transmedia adaptations or multiplici­ ties elsewhere). For this volume, being produced again for the screen is the determinant of remake. This definition is not without shortcomings, of course: as explored throughout this volume, a film might be construed as a remake by its audience but denied as such by its director, or an apparent remake may undergo such substantial alterations that render it almost com­ pletely dissimilar to its source text. I recognize therefore, that using remake is not without conjecture, but such debates are not the focus of this book. Why We Remake draws from a range of disciplines – from political sci­ ence to economics, from cultural studies to psychology – to understand the multi-faceted appeals for producers and also consumers in revisiting stories that have appeared on our screens on earlier occasions. It’s an exploration of the manufacturing of media and is revealing about a range of fascinating elements of the construction and consumption of creative cultural output.

Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Bennett, 2009. Rosenberg, 2011. Debruge, 2019. Knight, 2019. Cruz, 2019. Lopez, 2019. Koul, 2019; “Disney stuffs pockets with another cash-grab”, 2019; “A completely unnecessary remake”, 2019.

8

Introduction

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Moran, 2019.

“Copycat Simba is a roaring letdown”, 2019.

Horwitz, 2002. Quinn, 2004. Young, 2016. Shennan, 2009. Belcher, 2018. Goodman, 2010. Verniere, 2010. Rosenthal, 2012. Corliss, 2012. Moylan, 2014b. Walker, 2016. Braun, 2015. Wilkinson, 2017. McLean, 2019. Simpson, 2019. Lucas, 2019. Rosewarne, 2019a, 8. Abrams, 2011. Heinze and Krämer, 2015, 11. Dowd, 2016. Sepinwall, 2012, 243. Moore, 1998. Keveney, 2004. Mavis, 2001, 276. Harris, 2013. Zeitchik, 2019. Leitch, 2002, 37. Rosewarne, 2019a.

1

The bigger and better remake

Studio remakes are seldom low-budget affairs. As distinguished from fan productions – where industry outsiders motivated by love, parody, creative expression or sometimes all three, reproduce films without a profit motive1 – Hollywood remakes are commonly designed to outdo the original. Outdo in this sense is not necessarily about usurping the original’s place in film history or in the popular imaginary – although in practice this might happen2 – rather, it centers on making a bigger and better film as defined by profitability. Cinema-release remakes3 rarely take the form of small arthouse or indie productions,4 instead, arthouse, indie and small budget titles are commonly remade, oftentimes with more: more money, more technol­ ogy, more stars.5 Cultural theorist Christian Knöppler discusses this in his work on horror remakes, contrasting The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) with its 2003 remake, noting that the latter: aimed for mass appeal instead of drive-in theatres or disreputable grindhouses. It appeared highly polished, had invested in a few recog­ nizable actors, and was backed by a fully-fledged advertising campaign, a far cry from the low budget origins of the 1974 film.6 In his Maclean’s article, Brian D. Johnson describes remakes as “akin to urban gentrification”: “you jack up an old property and renovate it with a contem­ porary setting, bankable stars, state-of-the-art filmmaking techniques and a fresh coat of topical sentiment.”7 Film theorist Alexandra Heller-Nicholas describes the horror film The Last House on the Left (2009) as a gentrified remake of the 1972 film,8 and literary theorist Michael Harney also uses the term in his work on American remakes of French films, describing Hol­ lywoodization as “analogous to architectural gentrification.”9 This chapter focuses on renovation with the rationale being the reproduction of a film or television series that’s bigger and better than its predecessor. An overarch­ ing theme here is money: box office takings is one element (as explored further in Chapter 2), but my interest is more narrowly focused on money spent on things like special effects and bigger name talent. Remakes are routinely condemned by critics, commentators and fans as rip-offs,10 knock-offs,11 clones,12 pale imitations13 and carbon copies,14 and

10

The bigger and better remake

remake is habitually coupled in reviews with words like pointless,15 painful,16 excruciating,17 slavish,18 stupid,19 insipid,20 anemic,21 inferior,22 irrelevant,23 ill-advised,24 half-hearted25 and redundant.26 Psychiatrist Harvey Greenberg denounced remakes in his 1998 chapter as “shallow attempts to trade on an original’s smash success by using new stars, new technology, sometimes a new setting,”27 and I could quote dozens of similar slights. This largely unnuanced critical discourse posits that remakes are bad – are unoriginal,28 uninspired,29 unnecessary30 – and thus simply can’t be good films, let alone better ones. Such criticism is premised on two widely held beliefs: i) that there is an original film, that this original film is sacrosanct and that the appropri­ ate way to respect the original is by not remaking it and ii) that remakes are always bad because they are remakes: that the remake category itself is inher­ ently lazy,31 cannibalistic32 and parasitical.33 While debates around highly contested topics like originality, authenticity and fidelity rage elsewhere,34 the simple point to be made here is that remakes are widely criticized. Such criticism, however, highlights a fascinating paradox whereby audiences sup­ posedly hate remakes – and they articulate their loathing widely – yet Hol­ lywood keeps producing them, a point made in a Mega Nerd Media article: “Remakes are like fast-food joints, it’s super trendy to hate on them, yet somehow they keep turning a handsome profit. Despite what many may say, most people love remakes.”35 Steven Zeitchik echoes this point in The Wash­ ington Post, describing this disconnect as the “grumble gap”: “Audiences complain, then take out their wallets.”36 While audience motivations for watching remakes are complicated – they dominate in multiplexes so are difficult to avoid; some audiences enjoy comparing remakes with originals, and for some viewers pleasure even lies in hate-watching37 – ultimately it doesn’t matter why audiences pay to see a film: as Andrew Blair reminds us in a Den of Geek! article, “there is no separate box office revenue for ‘watched ironically.’ ”38 Regardless of widespread negative sentiment and frequently scathing reviews, audiences do indeed pay to see remakes – in very large numbers – in turn validating their production: if audiences hated them enough to actively avoid them production would stop – this hasn’t occurred; one-third of Disney’s 2019 releases, for example, were live-action remakes of their animation back catalogue.39 Equally, while the notion of the original always being superior is constantly repeated – “Q. How many film critics does it take to change a light bulb?”/A. 100. One to change the light bulb and another 99 to com­ ment on how much better the original was”40 – occasionally this idea gets subverted, and a bigger and better film results. In this chapter I focus on the creation of bigger and better remakes as a key production driver.

More than a remake While remakes mostly get unfavorable reviews, on rare occasions when criti­ cism is positive, reviewers often suggest that the new film is somehow more than a remake, as though the new item is good because it exceeds the dross

The bigger and better remake

11

normally offered by this production category. Examples of such commen­ tary include: • The thriller The 39 Steps (1959) as “more than a remake of Alfred Hitch­ cock’s original 1935 flick.”41 • The action-drama Shaft (2000) as “much more than a remake or sequel to the 1971 blaxploitation original.”42 • The Good Thief (2002) as “more than a remake” of the 1980 crime-drama.43 • The Italian Job (2003) as “more than a remake” of the 1969 British action-drama.44 • Alfie (2004) as “more than a remake” of the 1966 romcom.45 • The action-drama Miami Vice (2006) as “more than a remake” of the television series (1984–1990).46 • The Japanese samurai film Jûsan-nin no shikaku (13 Assassins) (2010) as “[m]ore than a remake” of the 1963 film.47 • True Grit (2010) – a remake of the 1969 Western – as “more than a remake,”48 “much more than a remake,”49 and as “more than a remake or even a revisionist Western.”50 • Suspiria (2018) – a remake of the 1977 horror film – as “[m]ore than a remake.”51 Like the vast majority of reviews that dip into the pool of remake rhetoric, more than a remake is seldom defined. Sometimes, as apparent in Shubhra Gupta’s Indian Express review of The Italian Job, the phrase is extrapolated upon slightly – i.e., the new film is described as “More than a remake, it’s a tribute to the older movie,”52 thus implying a kind of homage – but in most examples interpretation is left to the reader. On a cursory level such a comment simply works to praise a new film and serves to contend that the remake under review bucks the tradition of being lesser. In celebrating the new film, however, such reviews underscore the norm of bad remakes: by arguing that the new film defies all of the common mistakes that plague remakes, it is implied that the reviewed film is an outlier; that normally films in this production category are awful. This chapter focuses on this idea of a reproduction being more than just a remake, most notably through being more than its predecessor.

A cautionary note on better In response to a Guardian article about the crime-drama series Gracepoint (2014) – the short-lived American remake of the British series Broadchurch (2013–2017) – reader Steve Paradis comments: “Most cineastes have DVDs of Seven Samurai [1954] and The Magnificent Seven [1960]. The first DVD, of course, is the greater motion picture, but the second DVD has more scratches on it.”53 An interesting idea is articulated here: that the Kurosawa film might be perceived by film scholars as the superior original, but The Magnificent Seven persists as the more enjoyable movie. Such an example

12

The bigger and better remake

illustrates that definitively determining “better” is fraught: viewers use per­ sonal and often highly subjective criteria to evaluate films, and for some, pure enjoyment is the most potent factor. Added to this, changing viewer preferences over time can result in an older title – no matter how revered it once was – often looking dated compared to modern remakes: today audi­ ences expect films with sound,54 that are in color and, notably, which move faster (Chapter 6) and which contain more violence and sex (Chapter 5).55 The flipside to this, however, is that remakes oftentimes simply can’t com­ pete with the version that the viewer first saw and loved; Michael Druxman addresses this in his 1975 book Make It Again Sam: A Survey of Movie Remakes: “almost no remake – despite its quality – can shatter the fondness a specta­ tor might hold for the original he saw in his youth. It’s called nostalgia.”56 While not without limitations, markers like box office takings, award nom­ inations and wins and ratings on websites like the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) and Rotten Tomatoes can provide insight into whether a film is perceived as better. “Better” for the purposes of this chapter, however, cent­ ers less on audience reception and more on producer intention: studios spend money on remaking rather than chancing an untested story because reproducing a title already trialed in the market reduces risk (Chapter 2). The intention of studios is to remake a bigger and better production, even if in practice this doesn’t always pan out.

The era of the blockbuster An exploration of remakes necessitates a discussion of blockbusters, which is partly a film history lesson and partly an economics one. Film theorist Myoungsook Park discusses the “Age of the Blockbuster,” defining films under this banner as those “with huge budgets, saturation advertising and release, and short-run cycles.”57 Film theorist Lucy Mazdon similarly charac­ terizes such titles as those marked by: innovations in technology . . ., the presence of stars, expensive produc­ tion values, and an emphasis on plot over character. Indeed the major­ ity of blockbusters are action films with minimal narrative complexity.58 Jaws (1975) and Star Wars (1977) are routinely named as two films that ushered in this era of filmmaking: both movies were “event cinema” – mustwatch titles appealing to the broadest possible audience – and in turn estab­ lished the aspirations of the major studios in the decades that followed: big films with big budgets and, hopefully, big audiences facilitating big returns on investment. Alan Horn explains this strategy in his then role as president and chief operating officer of Warner Brothers: [I]n the end, it is all about getting people to come to the theater. The idea was that movies with greater production value should be more

The bigger and better remake

13

appealing to prospective moviegoers. Audiences respond to movie stars, but those lead to higher costs. Audiences respond to special effects, but those lead to higher costs, too. And you have to let audiences know you are there with your movie – really market it as an event – but that of course adds to the costs.59 The relevance of blockbusters to a discussion about remakes is multilayered, beginning most obviously with blockbusters often being remakes (or sequels or franchise expansions); something Richard Corliss discusses in Time magazine: The film industry, especially in the four-month peak-viewing period called summer, rarely tries squarely addressing Zeitgeist anxieties. Instead it ransacks its attic for sequels, spin-offs and, this year, remakes. You don’t look forward to many of the new season’s blockbuster hope­ fuls. You look backward.60 Journalist Lawrence Toppman makes similar observations about Hol­ lywood’s summer offerings: “The holiday Oscar leftovers are all but con­ sumed. Now filmgoers face a three-pronged attack of sequels, remakes and dumbed-down ‘concept movies’ for the next three months”61 (I return to the notion of summer offerings in this book’s Conclusion). Studios elect to produce remakes (and sequels and franchise expan­ sions) as blockbusters – instead of testing the waters with new, untrialled, smaller-scale works – for several reasons. First, Horn alludes to the high costs of not only making such films but marketing them; numerous schol­ ars have identified just how crucial large, well-executed and thus expensive advertising campaigns are to box office success.62 Marketing a title that has had previous popularity – and which likely remains (at least somewhat) familiar to audiences – means that studios don’t have to work quite as hard to explain why the characters are interesting or why the narrative is worth revisiting (Chapter 2). Second, a studio might already own the rights to the material – potentially having filmed it once or more times previously – and thus Hollywood is doing what they’ve done since the dawn of the industry and utilizing the properties in their catalogue. If a studio owns a story, the costs to adapt a script for a remake are minimal (Chapter 2). Third, by refilming a story that has previously worked, the studio is giving themselves a fighting chance to make money in a notoriously difficult industry.63 Holly­ wood keeps making versions of already-tested titles precisely because there is an established audience for them – at least provided something a little new is done each time; hence my interest in bigger, better do-overs, as well as the creative productions discussed in Chapter 5. Attempting to replicate the success of Jaws and Star Wars sees studios focus disproportionately on blockbusters that are, oftentimes, remakes. The hallmark of a blockbuster remake is the gentrification of an earlier

14

The bigger and better remake

title with special effects and flashy casting. A cornerstone of blockbuster remakes is a blockbuster-sized budget.

The bigger budget remake In her work on horror films, film theorist Carol Clover observes that some­ times, because of factors including budget, the films that win accolades are often the bigger titles: When I see an Oscar-winning film like The Accused [1988] or the artful Alien [1979]. . . . I can’t help thinking of all the low-budget, often harsh and awkward but sometimes deeply energetic films that preceded them by a decade or more – films that said it all, and in flatter terms, and on a shoestring.64 While Clover isn’t specifically discussing remakes, she nonetheless makes the important point that later films often build upon, develop and notably gentrify earlier titles and, in turn, become the ones that do well at the box office, during awards season and oftentimes in the public imaginary. This idea has much relevance for understanding why studios spend so much on making bigger remakes – to distinguish them from what’s gone before and to justify the existence of the reproduction – and thus, also why such films are sometimes perceived as superior. In his criticism of remakes, Johnson asks the proverbial “why bother?” question (explored further in the Introduction) and offers an answer inte­ gral to the themes of this chapter: [I]f the original was such a bloody masterpiece, why try to improve on it? The most common reason cited: we’re making it for a new genera­ tion that never saw the original. Followed by: we can do things with spe­ cial effects that weren’t possible when The Blob [1958]/The Thing [From Another World] [1951]/The Mummy [1932] was shot.65 This “new technology” rationale is widely used to justify remakes. Let Me In (2010), for example, is the American remake of the Swedish vampire hor­ ror Låt den rätte komma (Let the Right One In) (2008). Simon Oakes, producer of the remake, discussed some of the differences between the two films, spotlighting the new opportunities created by a bigger budget: If you say ‘remake’, I think that’s true to say. That’s what it is. . . . It’s not a reimagining. [It has] the same beats, maybe the scares are a little bit more scary. We’ve been able to ramp that up quite a lot, obviously for budgetary reasons.66 James Francis Jr. presents a similar case in his book Remaking Horror: Hol­ lywood’s New Reliance on Scares of Old, observing that “special effects play a

The bigger and better remake

15

powerful role in attracting patrons to contemporary horror films – hence the large number of movies being remade, with many of them attempting to heighten fear by way of special effects.”67 Larger budgets fund the bigger and (hopefully) better enhancements widely used in remakes; something particularly well-illustrated by Cecil B. DeMille’s biblical epic The Ten Com­ mandments (1956), an autoremake of his 1923 film and one of the earliest examples of a big budget remake. On a cursory level, the 1956 Command­ ments simply reflects a production trend widely observed following the advent of both sound and color technologies; something film theorist Dan­ iel Eagan explores: One of the first things studios do with any new technology is to remake whatever old properties they can. In Laurel and Hardy’s case, this meant reshooting their most successful silent films, or adapting their best gags to sound.68 In the case of The Ten Commandments, the 1923 film had been silent and, obviously, black and white; the 1953 remake utilized both sound and Tech­ nicolor enabling DeMille to execute an aesthetic vision not possible in 1923; something Nick Horton also examines in a Den of Geek! article: The technology available to DeMille in the 50s was light-years ahead of what he had the first time around. Color and sound had both become available, but better cameras, higher resolution, and the mighty VistaVision were all new introductions.69 Eagan notes that something similar was a motivator behind James Whale revisiting his film Frankenstein (1931) as Bride of Frankenstein in 1935: Bride of Frankenstein . . . is essentially a grander, more peculiar remake of Frankenstein. It’s as if Whale approached the project as a chance to do what time and budget restrictions prevented him from accomplishing in the first film.70 Many of the first talkies in the late 1920s were remakes of earlier silent productions – studios commonly test out new technologies by remaking material they already own:71 Wikipedia, for example, lists over 200 examples on their “Sound film remakes of silent films” page.72 Color technologies in the early 1930s similarly saw a slew of remakes of both silent and black and white titles. Film theorist Constantine Verevis notes that in the 1930s and 1940s studios were desperate for material and wanted to obtain it as cheaply as possible: as noted earlier, it is invariably cheaper for a studio to remake material they already own.73 Technological advancement drives a range of autoremakes whereby directors use new tools to gentrify their own films74 (an idea explored fur­ ther in Chapter 5): Jed Rapfogel, a film programmer at an autoremakes

16

The bigger and better remake

film festival, addresses this, observing: “There’s the idea of somebody hav­ ing grown as an artist or having different tools at hand.”75 This autoremake phenomenon occurs in Hollywood but is also witnessed globally.76 Technol­ ogy is part of the motive for directors to remake their own films as bigger and better productions and is key in remake production more broadly. While all studios face the challenge of attracting an audience, the remake has an additional burden of having to establish – and market – a case for people to pay to see a title they may have already seen. The use of new technology and special effects can provide such a reason. The Ten Command­ ments (1956) is a good illustration of this: it wasn’t merely a sound and color remake, but as Alan Kelly observes in his work on DeMille, it was a spectacle: Unlike the original, the remake was filmed in Egypt using as many as 25,000 extras in a scene. The price tag was $13 million, a phenomenal sum at that time, some of which went to pay for the stunning Academy Award-winning special effects.77 (This example can be likened to the 1963 blockbuster Cleopatra – another enormously expensive production and one based on a story first filmed in 1912.) The 1956 Ten Commandments was the most expensive film ever made at the time of its production.78 In the years since, a range of similar event films have been remade with enormous budgets: Cleopatra is one such exam­ ple; Verevis similarly spotlights King Kong (2005, previously made in 1933 and 1976), Godzilla (2014, previously made in 1954, 1977 and 1998), and Planet of the Apes (2001, previously made in 1968) as titles that were “revived through massive production budgets as cultural juggernauts, with strong marketing campaigns and merchandising tie-ins.”79 As Gordon Armstrong of the Entertainment Marketing Group notes, such titles are the kind that explicitly lend themselves to gentrification: Certain larger-than-life themes like the Robin Hood and King Arthur legends, and particularly mythic monsters (vampires, werewolves), are generally given good grades as remakes. There’s a fascination with those subjects that transcends the generations.80 (The attraction to filming the same stories over and over again is explored further in Chapter 3.) To create a film that entices audiences and tantalizes both reviewers and academy voters, DeMille – and, truth be told, any film­ maker wanting to produce a blockbuster – needs to have a “wow” factor,81 something marketing theorist Björn Bohnenkamp and colleagues discuss: [R]emakes offer familiarity but are generally limited in their sensation value, a major motivational driver of movie attendance. This lack exists because remakes do not present the continuation of a known story, as

The bigger and better remake

17

sequels do, or add specific new sensory experiences to a known book, as adaptations do.82 In the 1920s sound technologies ushered in the era of blockbuster musicals, similarly, the use of color in the 1930s delivered new thrills and fears to hor­ ror audiences: as Druxman notes, classics like Frankenstein and Dracula ben­ efited from a “brand new popularity once producers discovered they could be redone in blood-red color.”83 More recently, dramatic improvements in digital technologies have resulted in some of the fantastical animated worlds created by studios like Disney being reconceived as live-action repro­ ductions, something Karl Quinn explores in The Sydney Morning Herald: CGI allows the world of fantasy to mesh with the world of (pretend) reality, seamlessly. That allows these stories to be told in a way that, to some minds at least, is vastly more engaging, and thus justifies revisiting them.84 Media theorist Ryan Lizardi presents similar ideas in his discussion of The Jungle Book (2016), the live-action remake of Disney’s 1967 animation: “The live-action remake pays direct nostalgic homage to its 1967 animated source material while also attempting to court younger audiences through sophisticated hyperreal CGI and a darker tone.”85 (The use of darker tones is unpacked further in Chapter 5 in an examination of remakes that do double-duty, courting an audience of children and their parents). 3D technology is another tech-based gentrification tool with a long history,86 and it is deployed to give audiences a reason to return to the cinema and partake of sensory experiences unavailable within their homes, some­ thing communications theorist Murray Leeder discusses as having proved necessary once television began to threaten the box office: Facing weak box office returns in the early 1950s, the Hollywood studios embraced ostentatious new theatrical techniques to restore prestige to the filmgoing experience itself and thus to compete with television. These included the widescreen formats Cinerama, CinemaScope and VistaVision, stereophonic sound and 3D.87 In the 1950s a slew of films took advantage of 3D technology. The horror film Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933) for example, was remade in 3D as House of Wax (1953): the latter becoming the first Hollywood studio film to be released in 3D.88 Discussing the film, Leeder observes, “Rarely has hor­ ror cinema’s roots in sensational entertainment forms like the trick films of early cinema and carnival shows been more clearly on display.”89 Cul­ tural theorist Dennis Perry similarly observes that House of Wax brought “the horror closer to the audience,”90 and Peter Hutchings explores how 3D horror films distinguished themselves by projecting or firing out objects

18

The bigger and better remake

into the audience “in a veritable assault on the hitherto safe space of the cinema auditorium.”91 House of Wax’s 3D effect of a character appearing to run from the audience into the screen was something that television at the time couldn’t compete with. Phantom of the Rue Morgue (1954) – an adapta­ tion of the Edgar Allan Poe short story (1841), filmed many times since its use in the silent film Sherlock Holmes in the Great Murder Mystery (1908) – was another 3D horror remake from this period. A range of 1950s remakes from genres other than horror also utilized 3D effects, each repackaging an old story with the day’s latest technology and attempting to offer new sensory experiences to lure audiences away from their televisions: • The musical Miss Sadie Thompson (1953), a 3D remake of Sadie Thomp­ son (1928), later remade again as Rain (1932). • The musical-drama The French Line (1953), a 3D remake of The Richest Girl in the World (1934). • The film-noir Man in the Dark (1953), a 3D remake of The Man Who Lived Twice (1936). • The 3D Italian drama Cavalleria rusticana (Fatal Desire) (1953), based on the opera of the same name, first filmed in Italy in 1916. • The Mexican drama El valor de vivir (The Price of Living) (1954), a 3D remake of One Way Passage (1932), which had also been filmed as ‘Til We Meet Again (1940). While the 3D trend waned for several decades,92 the technology was reem­ braced in the 2000s as cinema again faced competition with alternate forms of entertainment, notably the internet and then streaming services like Net­ flix. 2000s-era 3D horror titles include Piranha (1978/2010), My Bloody Val­ entine (1981/2009), Poltergeist (1982/2015), Fright Night (1985/2011) and Dracula 3D (2012) – yet another version of a story filmed many times previ­ ously. In recent years, 3D technology has been deployed in remakes from other genres too, notably as apparent in numerous Disney remakes includ­ ing A Christmas Carol (2009), Alice in Wonderland (2010), Maleficent (2014), Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016), The Jungle Book (2016), Pete’s Dragon (2016), Beauty and the Beast (2017), The Lion King (2019), Dumbo (2019) and Aladdin (2019). The children’s film Ferdinand (2017) was similarly a 3D animated remake of the Disney short film Ferdinand the Bull (1938), and the adventure-drama Conan the Barbarian (2011) was a 3D remake of the 1982 production. While the effectiveness of 3D in corralling audiences into cinemas has long been debated,93 nonetheless, Michael Lewis, a pioneer in 3D technol­ ogy, notes in his discussion of The Jungle Book, that 43% of the American audience chose to see that film in 3D,94 the implication being that 3D is a drawcard, at least for some audiences.

The bigger and better remake

19

Studios spending more money on a remake than was spent on the prede­ cessor is the common trajectory, but budget size is no guarantee that a new film will be perceived as better. While “better” is, of course, subjective, on some occasions money spent on new technology and special effects leads to a remake actually being perceived as worse. In his review of Géla Bab­ luani’s 13 (2010) – Babluani’s US autoremake of his French crime-drama 13 Tzameti (2005) – John DeFore observes that the “original film’s claus­ trophobic mood owed much to Tariel Meliava’s art-noir black-and-white photography; the remake doesn’t benefit from a switch to color.”95 V.A. Musetto made a similar point in his New York Post review of the film, not­ ing, “One of Babluani’s biggest mistakes was to shoot the remake in color instead of black and white, which helped give the original its gritty flavor.”96 Similar criticisms have been levelled against Psycho (1998), Gus Van Sant’s remake of the 1960 Alfred Hitchcock classic. As in Babluani’s autoremake, the main modification made by Van Sant was filming in color. For both 13 Tzameti and the original Psycho, color had been available but was consciously eschewed – Hitchcock, for example, had already been filming in color since making Rope (1948) – nonetheless, both directors elected to film in black and while for a range of reasons including style, cost and, in the case of Hitchcock, in consideration of audience sensibilities and censors. For the remakes, however, both Babluani and Van Sant recognized that for a film to be competitive in the modern market – and in Babluani’s case, specifi­ cally in the American market – color was essential: as Francis noted, Van Sant “chose color to update the movie to modern sensibilities; this possibly shows how audiences seem to have no patience for black-and-white on the big screen anymore.”97 Arguably both 13 and the remade Psycho suffered from their gentrification: as Alison Willmore wrote in her review, “13 may actually have been undone by its own added resources and flashier cast.”98 Film the­ orist Richard Misek expresses a similar criticism about the 1998 Psycho: “Van Sant’s Psycho repeatedly fails to achieve what the cinematography of Hitch­ cock’s achieves. In my opinion, this failure is due . . . to the tension between optical color and realistic motivation.”99 Parallels can be observed here with criticisms of films made bigger through longer runtimes and more compli­ cated storylines but that don’t get reviewed as better (Chapter 5). While expensive special effects and sensory-stimulating gimmicks can help to make a remake bigger, so too can casting.

The better cast remake Johnson identifies “bankable stars” as being key in film gentrification, Maz­ don flags them as being central components of blockbusters and Horn observes that audiences respond favorably to stars. It is, therefore, unsur­ prising that a common way that a remake builds upon its predecessor – and an important device used to entice audiences to revisit a new iteration – is

20

The bigger and better remake

through the casting of celebrities. Celebrities are a central determinant in Americans’ decision to patronize a film; as Deborah Hornblow observes in her LA Times article about remakes, “most Americans have demonstrated that they refuse to pay money for films . . . whose stars are not on the cover of this week’s celebrity chronicles.”100 Stanley Rubin – who produced a range of remakes including the romcom Little Miss Big (1946), a remake of 3 Kids and a Queen (1935), and the actionadventure Destry (1954), George Marshall’s autoremake of Destry Rides Again (1939) – nominates casting as an acceptable reason to revisit an old story: If a studio is going to remake an old film – especially a successful one – they better have something in mind that will make the new picture as good or better than the original. . . . For example, maybe the theme is timely again, or perhaps, there’s a ‘hot’ piece of casting that makes the project an ‘exciting’ one.101 Hot casting can take many forms. In this section I examine the use of celebrities as manifested in the star vehicle remake, the comeback vehicle remake, the all-star remake, and the American remake. The star vehicle Feminist film theorist Karen Hollinger explains the concept of the “star vehicle”: A major venue for star acting is the star vehicle, a film specifically made to promote a given star. The star vehicle is often thought of simply as a film written to showcase a star’s talent, but several types of star vehicles exist. A film can be written to suit the character type, setting, genre, or theme favored by a star; a literary work can be adapted to the screen with a star in mind to play the lead, or a script can be written or a part changed or expanded to accommodate a star’s image or abilities.102 There are many examples of remakes serving in this fashion. Discuss­ ing Universal’s decision to remake the Western The Spoilers (1942), for example – a story that had previously been filmed in 1914, 1923 and 1930 (and was made again in 1955) – Druxman notes that the film was remade to provide “a vehicle for Marlene Dietrich.”103 In previous versions, the role of Cherry, the saloon owner, had been small, but in the 1942 version, the role was substantially expanded to capitalize on Dietrich’s stardom. Dis­ cussing the comedy Masquerade in Mexico (1945) – a film described as “a loose remake of the 1939 classic Midnight”104 – biographer Christine Rice describes the remake as a “showcase vehicle for Paramount star Dorothy Lamour.”105 Laurence Raw, in his work on screen adaptations of literature, discusses the romance I’ll Never Forget You (1951) – a remake of Berkeley

The bigger and better remake

21

Square (1933) – observing that it was “[c]onceived as a vehicle for Tyrone Power, who had reigned supreme as Twentieth Century Fox’s leading male star since the late 1930s.”106 Such star vehicles, of course, aren’t restricted to the Hollywood “studio system” days: more recent remakes can also be cate­ gorized similarly. In his review of the drama Sybill (2007) – the made-for-TV remake of Sybill (1976) – for example, Matthew Gilbert asks, “Why bother taking on a classic with limited popular potential when a remake is doomed to pale creatively next to the original?” One answer Gilbert provides is that the remake “was hatched to give actress Tammy Blanchard a big vehicle to suit her big talent.”107 In a Huffington Post discussion about The Karate Kid (2010) – a remake of the 1984 film – it was similarly suggested that the new film had “been refashioned as a star vehicle for Jaden Smith.”108 Other examples of modern star vehicle remakes include Emma Watson in Beauty and the Beast (2017), the live-action remake of the 1991 animation; Scarlett Johansson in Ghost in the Shell (2017), the American remake of the Japanese animation Kôkaku Kidôtai (Ghost in the Shell) (1995); Tom Cruise in The Mummy (2017), a remake of the 1932 and 1999 titles; Anna Faris in the comedy Overboard (2018), a remake of the 1987 title; Bruce Willis in the crime-drama Death Wish (2018), a remake of the 1974 title and the voices of everyone from Beyoncé to Donald Glover to Chiwetel Ejiofor to Alfre Woodard in The Lion King (2019). In his writings on Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991) – a remake of The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) – Dan Georgakas observed that “The linch­ pin of the new star vehicle was Kevin Costner, already a bankable star in the United States.”109 Here, Georgakas frames the 1991 film as a star vehicle for Costner and also explains the use of stars as centering on bankability, with such talent helping to get films funded, to draw media attention to a pro­ ject, to lure audiences into cinemas and to facilitate a strong box office:110 as media scholar P. David Marshall contends, “The star acts as a form of insurance in Hollywood, a kind of guaranteed return on investment for the production company.”111 Stars are also used in remakes to modernize titles. The audience for old films is limited (Chapter 6): modern audiences – particularly young audiences – want to see films with recognizable actors (a key reason why films are remade and not just rereleased). Journalist Rob Owen makes this point in his discussion on the mini-series Roots (2016) – a remake of the 1977 drama series: “The original, though daring for its time, feels dated today with a cast that’s largely unknown – and thus, less of a draw – to today’s youth.”112 By utilizing contemporary celebrities, a remake can attract an audience that would otherwise likely be uninterested in a dated title. The comedy Mr. Deeds (2002) – the remake of Frank Capra’s classic Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936) – illustrates this well. Rather than the 2002 film being pitched as a remake of a 70-year-old film, instead, it was marketed as an Adam Sandler film that builds upon the Sandler persona established through other films, i.e., “frustrated anger, bashful self-consciousness, friendly guilelessness, and

22

The bigger and better remake

bloke-ish ribaldry.”113 In a range of examples, a decades-old film is remade and the reproduction rationale – and the new hook for audiences (and to a lesser extent critics) – is the casting of contemporary stars: • The biblical drama The Ten Commandments (1923) remade in 1956 with Charlton Heston and Yul Brynner. • The melodrama Stella Dallas (1925/1937) remade as Stella (1990) with Bette Midler. • The crime-drama Scarface (1932) remade in 1983 with Al Pacino. • The adventure film King Kong (1933/1976) remade in 2005 with Naomi Watts and Jack Black. • The drama Death Takes a Holiday (1934) remade as Meet Joe Black (1998) with Brad Pitt. • The thriller The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934) remade in 1956 with James Stewart and Doris Day. • The musical-melodrama A Star is Born (1937/1954) remade in 1976 with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson and again in 2018 with Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper. • The film-noir Mildred Pierce (1945) remade as a mini-series in 2011 with Kate Winslet and Guy Pearce. • The crime-comedy The Ladykillers (1955) remade in 2004 with Tom Hanks. • The Western 3:10 To Yuma (1957) remade in 2007 with Russell Crowe and Christian Bale. • The heist film Ocean’s 11 (1960) remade in 2001 with George Clooney, Brad Pitt and Julia Roberts. The film was remade again as the sexswapped Ocean’s 8 (2018) with Cate Blanchett, Sandra Bullock and Anne Hathaway. • The thriller Cape Fear (1962) remade in 1991 with Robert De Niro and Jessica Lange. • The crime-comedy Fun with Dick and Jane (1977) remade in 2005 with Jim Carrey and Téa Leoni. • The action-adventure Ghostbusters (1984) remade in 2016 with a sexswapped cast including Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig. Cultural theorists Jennifer Forrest and Leonard Koos note that star vehicles “capitalize on a performer’s established persona.”114 Forrest offers Rita Hay­ worth’s starring role in the aforementioned remake Miss Sadie Thompson (1953) as an example: “Hayworth draws upon the heritage of her seductive singing roles in Gilda [1946] and Affair in Trinidad [1952] – [providing] yet another boost for male attendance.”115 Forrest notes that the market­ ing materials for Miss Sadie Thompson drew specific attention to Hayworth’s sex appeal: “See Rita in 3D! She’s the only dame with a kiss of flame!”116 In such instances, producers capitalize on personas established through previous roles to inject something new and enticing into an old title. The

The bigger and better remake

23

aforementioned remake The French Line was another 3D film that utilized the sex appeal of its female star: one bill poster featured star Jane Russell in a low-cut swimsuit with the text “J.R. in 3D” in text larger than either her name or the film’s title. A remake capitalizing on a star’s established sexy persona is also apparent in One Million Years B.C. (1966), a remake of One Million B.C. (1940). Film theorist Roy Kinnard discusses the remake’s overt sexual appeals: “The 1966 color remake . . . was a huge success when the canny publicity department at 20th Century-Fox promoted rising star­ let Raquel Welch’s physique.”117 Stephen Dalton in The Times similarly describes the 1966 film as “largely a vehicle for the legendary animator Ray Harryhausen and Raquel Welch’s busty charms.”118 In such examples, a studio intends for a star’s track record of seducing audiences through past productions to carry over to the remake. Elsewhere I discuss a range of similar examples of sexy actresses cast in remakes to bring new appeals to an old property; Scarlet Johansson is one such example: Scarlett Johansson in Ghost in the Shell (2017) – the American live-action remake of the Japanese animation Kôkaku Kidôtai (Ghost in the Shell) (1995) – capitalized on the erotic appeal she had established through titles like the sci-fi Lucy (2014) and the drama Don Jon (2013). Arguably Johansson’s earlier casting in the crime-drama The Black Dahlia (2006) – based on a story filmed previously as The Blue Dahlia (1946) and Who is the Black Dahlia? (1975) – also, similarly, took advantage of the appeal she established through the drama Lost in Translation (2003).119 Hollinger observes that films can be specifically made to showcase a star’s talent. In this case of remakes, such talent can bring new life and new appeals to an old title and even turn a new production into something quite different, if not ideally better. In their book Cinema Sequels and Remakes, 1903–1987, Robert Nowlan and Gwendolyn Wright Nowlan present Summer Holiday (1948) – the musical remake of the comedy Ah, Wilderness! (1935) – as an example: “The 1948 musical remake is basically a star vehicle for the then very popular Mickey Rooney.”120 The 1935 film had been a comedydrama, but through use of Rooney – a popular song and dance man – the remake was elevated to something new and, arguably, better. Simon Abrams in Politico spotlights something similar, observing that A Song is Born (1948) – a musical remake of the screwball comedy Ball of Fire (1941) – had been “commissioned as a vehicle for its musical stars, like Tommy Dorsey, Louis Armstrong and Charlie Barnet.”121 In such examples, audiences are encour­ aged to revisit a title because stars with special talents – singing and dancing, for example – promise to make the new production something different, bigger and hopefully better. Pop star Lady Gaga taking on the protagonist role in the aforementioned A Star is Born (2018) is another such example: Gaga’s fame as a musician and creative performer injects new relevance, intrigue and appeal to a well-worn title. (Of course, even the 1954 and 1976

24

The bigger and better remake

versions functioned similarly: Rebecca Keegan in Vanity Fair, for exam­ ple, spotlights that “the [Judy] Garland and the Streisand versions were intended as showcases for their leading ladies.”)122 In fact, a range of sing­ ers cast in remakes furthers this point: Elvis Presley in Kid Galahad (1962), a remake of the 1937 title; Barbra Streisand in the 1976 A Star is Born, as well as Hello, Dolly! (1969), a version of material that had previously been filmed as The Matchmaker (1958); Olivia Newton-John in Xanadu (1980), a remake of Down to Earth (1947); Sting in The Bride (1985), a remake of Bride of Frankenstein (1935); Bette Midler in Down and Out in Beverly Hills (1986), a remake of the French film Boudu sauvé des eaux (Boudu Saved from Drowning) (1932); Brandy in Cinderella (1997), the live-action remake of the 1950 animation; Whitney Houston in The Preacher’s Wife (1996), a remake of The Bishop’s Wife (1947), as well as in Sparkle (2012), the remake of the 1976 film and also in the aforementioned 1997 Cinderella; Madonna in Swept Away 2002), the remake of the Italian film Travolti da un insolito destino nell’azzurro mare d’agosto (Swept Away) (1974) and Beyoncé in Carmen: A Hip Hopera (2001), a remake of Carmen Jones (1954). Singers – be they granted the opportunity to perform musically within the remake or not – are relatively common, with producers capitalizing on an artist’s success in one field in the hope that it extends to the new film and that, ideally, their fans will be attracted to the reimagined production. On rare occasions famous people not associated with the entertainment industry are also cast in remakes to similarly offer new enticements to help grow the audience: basketballer Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in Flying High (1980), the remake of Zero Hour! (1957), and footballer Vinnie Jones in Gone in 60 Seconds (2000), a remake of the 1974 film, are illustrations. Worth noting, sometimes the weight of actors’ previous roles can make films seem like remakes even if their status as such is disputed. The West­ erns Rio Bravo (1959), El Dorado (1967) and Rio Lobo (1970), each directed by Howard Hawks provide good illustrations of this. While El Dorado and Rio Lobo are often considered as remakes of Rio Bravo,123 this is something Hawks has denied: I don’t consider them to be remakes. There were so many story dif­ ferences. . . . Frankly, in making a film, I don’t care that much about the story. I believe in making good scenes. Of course similar charac­ ters were used in all three pictures. But, they were good characters and I think they worked well every time.124 Something that makes El Dorado and Rio Lobo look like remakes however, is the starring role of John Wayne in each: the presence of Wayne and the “similar characters” in each story makes these titles seem remake-y even if Hawks claims they aren’t. Something similar occurs more broadly for the titles within a director’s oeuvre: a director’s preoccupation with certain themes can give their back catalogue a remake feel. Film critic Philip Strick

The bigger and better remake

25

provides an example of this, claiming that Steven Soderbergh’s Solaris (2002) – itself a remake of Solyaris (Solaris) (1968/1972) – is also a riff on Soderbergh’s own earlier films: Solaris is almost if not quite a rerun [a remake] of Ocean’s Eleven [2001] (out-of-towner invades hi-tech labyrinth in order to win back wife), The Underneath [1995] (out-of-towner pursues former wife for second chance), Traffic [2000] (stranger-in-town searches for lost daughter to reunite family), or The Limey [1999] (troubleshooter for another conti­ nent arrives in town to avenge lost daughter.125 While Solaris (2002) in fact is quite different – in plot, in genre – to Soder­ bergh’s other films, the director nonetheless frequently returns to similar motifs,126 filming techniques and even also collaborators, thus giving his work the feel of familiarity and opening up each production to the pos­ sibility of being construed as an autoremake (a topic examined further in Chapter 5). Such a point highlights the elastic (and contested) use of the term remake, as well as the obvious subjectivity (and arguably reductiveness) of its application. While remakes can be vehicles for established stars, they can also provide an opportunity for up-and-comers: a remake gives an emerging talent an opportunity to ingratiate themselves with an audience within a title that has previously been positively received. Nowlan and Wright Nowlan discuss Alice Adams (1935), a remake of the 1923 silent drama, as such an exam­ ple. The authors note that – akin to Masquerade in Mexico being tweaked for Marlene Dietrich – Alice Adams (1923) was altered to make use of its up-and-coming star: “the producers wished to emphasize the romantic aspects of the story for their young star, Katharine Hepburn.”127 Film theo­ rist Robert J. Lentz similarly identifies the film-noir I Died a Thousand Times (1955) – a remake of High Sierra (1941), which was also remade as Colo­ rado Territory (1949) – as another such example, naming it as a vehicle for “up-and-coming film star Jack Palance.”128 Francis also flags the widespread use of up-and-coming stars in horror remakes.129 In more recent years, the Western True Grit (2010) can be construed as serving in this fashion for up-and-comer Hailee Steinfeld, who received an Academy Award nomina­ tion for her role. Let Me In gave this opportunity to Chloë Grace Moretz, and Annie (2014) – the remake of the 1982 film – served as such a film for Quvenzhané Wallis. The forthcoming The Little Mermaid remake will serve in such a fashion for Halle Bailey.130 While in this section I have discussed remakes providing breakout roles for actors, it’s also worth mentioning that remakes can function in this fashion for directors too. In Chapter 6, for example, I discuss remakes providing a directing opportunity to women who are enormously underrepresented as filmmakers. Directing remakes have similarly provided opportunities to actors who want to try their hand at filmmaking.131

26

The bigger and better remake

Something that undergirds the wisdom of using established stars in remakes also, conversely, hints to a shortcoming of casting up-and-comers. While remakes can provide a breakout role, there are occasions when remakes suffer because of their (relatively) unknown cast. In Brian Eggert’s review of Flatliners (2017) for example – a remake of the 1990 sci-fi – he spotlights the different approaches that the two films took to casting: The original’s cast (Kiefer Sutherland, Julia Roberts, Kevin Bacon, etc.) contained Hollywood mega-stars in their prime. The remake’s headlin­ ers are Ellen Page and Diego Luna, both talented performers to be sure, but not major stars. They’re backed by a group of young relative unknowns, and collectively their most impressive credit is TV’s The Vam­ pire Diaries [2009–2017].132 The Flatliners remake – criticized by reviewers as mediocre133 and unnecessary134 – didn’t benefit from the star power that its predecessor had and suffered accordingly at the box office. Film historian Barry Salt makes a similar point in his discussion of the two versions of Psycho: In the original Psycho, Anthony Perkins and Janet Leigh were estab­ lished stars, and heading into middle age, whereas in the 1998 remake, the leads were Anne Heche and Vince Vaughn, who were younger, and not really established as film stars.135 In these examples, the absence of established stars in the remake constituted part of the criticism: while the cast might have been newer and perhaps “hotter,” the remakes weren’t necessarily enhanced by their casting. Remakes can also serve as comeback vehicles for actors whose careers have hit a plateau and who are looking for a means to endear themselves to audi­ ences once again. Paul Meehan in his book Horror Noir: Where Cinema’s Dark Sisters Meet presents actor Lon Chaney as an early example of this: For his talkie debut, MGM chose to remake The Unholy Three in 1930 as a vehicle for this new iteration of Chaney’s career at a time when many silent stars were unable to make the transition to sound.136 The Unholy Three was a remake of the 1925 silent film of the same title. The remake gave Chaney an opportunity to reposition himself as a star of talkies by reprising his role within a title that audiences were likely (at least some­ what) already positively familiar with. Film scholar David Meuel similarly discusses Mogambo (1953) as functioning in this same comeback manner for Clark Gable: Conceived by MGM executives as a comeback vehicle for an aging Clark Gable (who hadn’t made a good film in years), [Mogambo is] an

The bigger and better remake

27

unabashed remake of Red Dust, another Gable-centered love triangle made all the way back in 1932.137 Other remakes discussed as comeback vehicles include Judy Garland in the aforementioned A Star is Born (1954);138 Whitney Houston in the aforemen­ tioned Sparkle139; Lana Turner in the melodrama Imitation of Life (1959), the remake of the 1934 film;140 Eddie Murphy in the comedy The Nutty Pro­ fessor (1996), the remake of the 1963 film141 and Bess Armstrong in the comedy That Darn Cat (1997), the remake of the 1965 film.142 The afore­ mentioned live-action Dumbo (2019) was also speculated as being artistic comeback vehicle for director Tim Burton.143 For stars needing to resurrect a career after scandal – Mel Gibson’s 2006 racist tirade put him in such a position – appearing in a remake can also serve in this capacity: Gibson’s attempt at a comeback vehicle was Edge of Darkness (2010), the remake of the British mini-series (1985). Similar to the role that remakes can serve for new stars, such films can provide an opportunity for established or ageing stars to (re)connect with audiences via a title with established appeal. One big star on a billing can help a remake ingratiate itself with a new audience; an all-star remake attempts to do this with stacked star power. The all-star remake The ensemble film – a label describing a movie that has shirked the standard Hollywood protagonist model to instead utilize “a large cast of characters interacting together”144 (i.e., akin to a stage play) – can be elevated through an all-star cast: if one celebrity is attractive to audiences, surely a cast-full is catnip! Considered as the first ever all-star ensemble film, Grand Hotel (1932) – featuring Greta Garbo, John Barrymore and Joan Crawford – was a finan­ cial gamble for MGM but one that paid off handsomely by becoming a box office and awards season hit. While not a remake itself – (although Grand Hotel did get remade as the musical Week-End at the Waldorf [1945] and as Menschen im Hotel [1959] in Germany) – the film was an all-star ensemble success story that many studios have attempted to mimic in the decades since. Week-End at the Waldorf followed the path laid by Grand Hotel and made similar use of an all-star cast featuring Ginger Rogers, Lana Turner, Van Johnson and Walter Pidgeon. Other remakes have also deployed this celeb­ rity ensemble model. Ocean’s 11 (1960) for example, was an all-star heist film designed to capitalize on the popularity of the “rat pack” of Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Sammy Davis Jr. and Peter Lawford. When the film was remade in 2001, not only were the plot and title recycled but so too was the all-star ensemble cast template: the remake featured George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon and Julia Roberts. The aforementioned Ocean’s 8 was a sex-swapped spin on the same material and again replicated the casting of

28

The bigger and better remake

the earlier versions to become what Christopher Orr in The Atlantic dubbed a “star-power delivery device:”145 the mostly female all-star cast included Cate Blanchett, Sandra Bullock and Anne Hathaway. Murder on the Orient Express (1974) – the first screen adaptation of the Agatha Christie novel (1934) – boasted an all-star ensemble cast featuring Lauren Bacall, Ingrid Bergman and Sean Connery. While the Christie story has been adapted on several occasions – for example as a TV movie in 2001 and as a Japanese mini-series in 2015 – it was the 2017 remake that most closely resembled the 1974 all-star ensemble, starring Johnny Depp, Penélope Cruz, Judi Dench and Willem Dafoe. The aforementioned 2019 Lion King remake also did the same thing with voice work, with the all-star cast central to the new produc­ tion’s prepublicity marketing. Adaptations of plays and novels frequently lend themselves to the all-star remake model, often being large ensemble pieces that benefit from the freshness of contemporary celebrity. The 1993 film production of Shake­ speare’s Much Ado About Nothing was, as J. Spencer Beck discussed in a Variety review, an “all-star production . . . featuring some of today’s brightest names in pictures: Emma Thompson, Kenneth Branagh, Denzel Washington, Keanu Reeves, and Michael Keaton.”146 When Shakespeare was readapted in Romeo + Juliet (1996), director Baz Luhrmann utilized a hot young ensem­ ble cast – including Leonardo DiCaprio, Claire Danes, Paul Rudd and John Leguizamo – to modernize a well-known story and to elevate it to something specifically enticing to young people (discussed further in Chapter 5). The Stepford Wives (1975) – adapted from the 1972 Ira Levin novel – had been a film memorable less for its cast and more for its unique storyline, tap­ ping into the second-wave feminist movement and showcasing a misogynist dystopia where women were replaced by “perfect wife” robots.147 When the film was remade in 2004, while the no-longer original premise was likely insufficient on its own to lure audiences, an all-star cast featuring Nicole Kidman, Matthew Broderick, Glenn Close and Bette Midler functioned to appeal. Similar observations can be made about other literary (re)adapta­ tions with all-star casts: Moby Dick (1956), The Age of Innocence (1993), Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011) and Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby (2013) are such examples. There are several reasons why remakes utilize all-star casts: the central one, as noted, centers on appealing to the audience through so much star power. Another reason is that a large cast of stars provides audiences with a range of entry points: a point made in several scholarly discussions on ensemble casting. In cultural theorist Dana Heller’s work on the television drama series Orange is the New Black (2013–2019) for example, she notes that: “Ensemble casting also enables Netflix to cast a wide net for consumer identifications.”148 Film theorist Claire Monk makes a similar point in her work on heritage films noting that the ensemble production “multiplies the films’ points of appeal and promotional possibilities.”149 The chance of a remake’s success is assumed to increase if a studio stacks the deck with a known title and a cast full of stars.

The bigger and better remake

29

When Grand Hotel performed well at the box office and won the Best Picture Oscar in 1932, it created a template for success that other films would try to replicate in pursuit of box office takings and also awards. Such gentrification, however, isn’t always a recipe for success. In Joe Williams’s review of the political-thriller All the King’s Men (2006) – a remake of the 1949 film – he frames the all-star ensemble casting as a crass and indulgent awards season ploy: Talk about stuffing the ballot box. Sean Penn, Jude Law, Kate Winslet, Mark Ruffalo, Patricia Clarkson, James Gandolfini and Anthony Hop­ kins – there’s enough gilded statuary to render the moviegoing public temporarily blind. So, for the past year, critics have presumed that the all-star remake of All the King’s Men would be a sure contender for mul­ tiple Oscars, just like the 1949 original.150 While the remake was, in fact, widely regarded as a flop151 – or, as Nathan Rabin writes in A/V Club, “an unmitigated disaster”152 – All the King’s Men was nonetheless a gentrified remake that had high hopes of being a better film.153 A similar criticism was levelled at the aforementioned 13. As Len Brown notes in his book on actor Jason Statham, “as the remake 13 proved, a Hollywood budget and an all-star cast including Jason [Statham], Mickey Rourke, Ray Winstone, Ben Gazzara, Curtis Jackson (a.k.a. 50 Cent) and Sam Riley (from Anton Corbijn’s Control [2007]) would not necessarily guarantee a great picture.”154 Akin to the All the King’s Men remake, 13 was received far less positively than its predecessor, 13 Tzameti. The musical Nine (2009) – the remake of the Italian film 8½ (1963) – is another example of this: despite an all-star cast of Daniel Day-Lewis, Nicole Kidman, Judi Dench, Marion Cotillard and Penélope Cruz, the film was neither a critical nor box office success. The 2008 comedy-drama The Women – featuring an all-star cast of Meg Ryan, Annette Bening, Carrie Fisher and Bette Midler – was the remake of the 1949 film, itself an all-star production, starring Joan Crawford and Rosalind Russell. The 2008 production was a flop. Such examples point not only to the severe shortcomings of success tem­ plates but also perhaps to a cynical audience who often want more than mere compounded star power and who might even feel insulted by the assump­ tion that they’re seduced so easily (Chapter 2). The use of celebrities in English-language remakes of English-language films is common, as too is their inclusion in adaptations of foreign material. In such examples, stars are used to make international film and television more palatable to American audiences. The American star In their discussion about the aforementioned Swedish vampire film Låt den rätte komma in (Let the Right One In) and its American remake Let Me In, film theorists Wheeler Winston Dixon and Gwendolyn Audrey Foster provide

30

The bigger and better remake

two key justifications for American remakes: “(1) a lack of original ideas, and (2) the profit potential for an English-language version with recog­ nizable stars in the leading roles.”155 This notion of recognizable stars as drawcards transpires widely in American transnational remakes. Mentioned earlier was the Japanese film Shichinin no samurai (Seven Samurai). When it was remade in the US as the Western The Magnificent Seven, no small part of the new production’s success lay in the all-star ensemble cast of Yul Bryn­ ner, Steve McQueen and Charles Bronson. While the cast of the television series adaptation (1998–2000) was forgettable, when the film was remade in 2016, an all-star ensemble was again utilized with Denzel Washington, Ethan Hawke and Chris Pratt cast. When the Hong Kong film Mou gaan dou (Infernal Affairs) (2002) was remade as The Departed (2006), the film boasted a cast featuring Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson, Mark Wahlberg and Martin Sheen. The film was a box office, critical and award-winning success story, becoming the first remake to win a Best Pic­ ture Academy Award. One of the most successful American adaptations of a foreign title was Three Men and a Baby (1987), the remake of the French film 3 hommes et un couffin (Three Men and Cradle) (1985) and one that utilized three of the biggest stars of the 1980s: Ted Danson, Steve Guttenberg and Tom Selleck. Discussing another American adaptation, Dinner for Schmucks (2010) – the remake of the French comedy Le dîner de cons (The Dinner Game) (1998) – film critic Bill Gibron describes the 2010 production as “a starring vehicle for current comedy aces Paul Rudd, Zach Galifianakis, and Steve Carell.”156 Even outside of ensemble casts, American adaptations can serve as star vehicles for individual talent. Doris Toumarkine in her Film Journal International discussion of the comedy The Toy (1982) – the Ameri­ can remake of Le Jouet (The Toy) (1976) – observes that the remake was a star vehicle for Richard Pryor.157 Writing for Paste Magazine, Danielle Ryan similarly observes that The Tourist (2010) – the US version of the French crime-drama Anthony Zimmer (2005) – was a star vehicle for Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie.158 Simply inserting celebrities into an American remake, of course, isn’t always sufficient to ensure remake success. Ryan made this point in the con­ text of The Tourist, noting that neither Depp nor Jolie could “rescue this ter­ rible movie from itself.”159 Literary theorist Linda Hutcheon also discusses this in her work on the aforementioned Italian film Travolti da un insolito des­ tino nell’azzurro mare d’agosto (Swept Away) and its English language remake: The star system and all its attendant glamor may not be enough, how­ ever, to guarantee a financial or artistic success: witness Guy Ritchie’s unsuccessful 2002 remake of Lina Wertmüller’s Swept Away (1974) as a vehicle for his [then] wife, Madonna.160 A criticism of star-stacked remakes – but one specifically directed at US remakes of foreign content – is that celebrities are testimony to Hollywood’s

The bigger and better remake

31

preoccupation with the commercial side of filmmaking, with artistry falling by the wayside. Mazdon alludes to this in her discussion of casting being key in distinguishing the French film À bout de souffle (Breathless) (1960) from its American remake Breathless (1983): [Director Jim] McBride’s use of an established star (Richard Gere) in contrast to the (then) relatively unknown [Jean-Paul] Belmondo, colour film stock and sophisticated production values, and the film’s ‘simplification’ of [Jean-Luc] Godard’s dialogue and narra­ tive are cited in order to justify descriptions of Breathless as ‘pure Hollywood.’161 The “pure Hollywood” criticism is frequently directed at American films, which are often accused of being more style than substance162 (explored further in Chapter 4). Hollywood movies – and, more specifically, Hollywood remakes – are often viewed as being disproportionately concerned with celebrity and aesthetics and that this comes at a cost to artistry and gravitas. A good exam­ ple of this was provided by Park in her discussion of The Grudge (2004), the American remake of the Japanese horror film Ju-on (The Grudge) (2002). In the Japanese film, the haunted house was the protagonist. In the American remake the storyline was altered to utilize the star power of Sarah Michelle Gellar, famous for her titular role in Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1996–2003). Park observes that in the American production, the “universal star protago­ nist” model was deployed, putting a more conventional human character at the helm to comply with expectations of Hollywood.163 Altering the focal point, however, fundamentally changed the film and, arguably, distanced the remake from what had made Ju-on so innovative and intriguing. Hor­ ton provides another example of this in his analysis of Bangkok Dangerous (2008), the American autoremake of the Thai crime-drama of the same name (2000), whereby fundamental traits of the predecessor’s protagonist were altered to accommodate Hollywood’s universal star protagonist model, arguably to its detriment: The 2008 Bangkok Dangerous changes the original’s deaf/mute hitman to a hitman with a deaf/mute girlfriend (because [Nicolas] Cage had to have dialogue). It also lost most of the elements which made the original engaging, and instead replaced them with a pedestrian plot and leaden direction.164 In making such a dramatic change to the storyline, the charms that made the original Bangkok Dangerous so unique and memorable were eliminated and, in turn, critics described the 2008 film variously as listless,165 redun­ dant166 and sanitized.167 While often criticized, nonetheless, US transnational remakes provide an opportunity for star vehicles for American celebrities, thus perpetuating

32

The bigger and better remake

their production. Such transnational remakes are examined in greater detail in Chapter 4. This chapter has focused on gentrification, examining films that get made bigger and hopefully better through the application of all the enhance­ ments money can buy. Money is expanded on in Chapter 2 through an exploration of the economic justifications for remaking.

Notes 1 Fan productions are defined as “not-for-profit creations of individuals who do not work in the television or film industry” (Frazetti, 2009, 199). See also Hutcheon and O’Flynn, 2013; Loock and Verevis, 2012. 2 While a remake can become more memorable than the original because it was perceived as more enjoyable by audiences or was more widely lauded, film his­ tory also provides examples where remakes usurp originals because the original movie simply no longer exists. The US Library of Congress, for example, keeps a list of Lost Silent Feature Films, many of which have been remade and, thus, the remake – being accessible and thus viewable – indeed does usurp the origi­ nal (Harris, 2013). On other occasions, a more active attempt at positioning a remake to usurp occurs. Physical destruction of predecessors is explored further in Chapter 2. 3 As contrasted with the large number of made-for-TV remakes whereby cinema releases are remade for a television audience, for example: 12 Angry Men (1957) remade for television in 1997; Camille (1936) remade for television in 1984, or I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang (1932), remade for television as The Man Who Broke 1,000 Chains (1987). 4 The Beguiled (2017), for example, was described by Kevin Maher in The Times as an “arthouse remake” of the 1971 film (Maher, 2017). In light of the remake’s $10.5 million budget, its Academy Award winning director and its all-star cast, claiming that the remake is “arthouse” appears a bit of a stretch. Something similar could be said for Far From Heaven (2002) – which Helen Geib describes as “an arthouse remake of Douglas Sirk’s All That Heaven Allows [1955]” (Geib, 2011). The arthouse label again seems somewhat odd given that the film had a $13.5 million budget and starred the Oscar-nominated Julianne Moore. Of course, in a mediascape dominated by blockbusters, the budget of both of these films does liken them more to indie or arthouse features. 5 Writer Saxon Bullock observes that “[l]ong-forgotten B movies can be a gold­ mine for quick and easy updates, as The Fast and the Furious [2001] proved, steal­ ing the 1954 original’s title and a few aspects of the storyline. Gone in 60 Seconds [2000] performed a similar act of thievery on a low-budget 1974 thriller – while, on supposedly classier terrain, 1998’s Meet Joe Black took the basic premise of the 1934 movie Death Takes a Holiday – which only lasted 79 minutes – and stretched it over a mind-numbing three hours” (Bullock, 2012). 6 Knöppler, 2017, 198.

7 Johnson, 2009b, 63.

8 Heller-Nicholas, 2010, 92.

9 Harney, 2002, 74.

10 Remakes are often derided as rip-offs in reviews and commentary, for example Birds II: Land’s End (1994) as a “rotten Hitchcock rip-off” of The Birds (1963) (Roush, 1999); ‘Til There Was You (1997) as a “truly stupendously boring rip-off of Sleepless in Seattle [1993]” (Lowing, 1997) and the film My Favorite Martian

The bigger and better remake

33

(1999) as “more rip off than blast off” of the TV series (1963–1966) (Chester, 1999). 11 Remakes are often derided as knocks-offs in reviews and commentary: 666: The Child (2006), for example, as “so obviously a knock-off” of The Omen (1976) (Renner, 2016, 32); The Italian Job (2003) as a “souped-up knock-off” of the 1969 title (“DVD: Caine remake is very able!”, 2004); Piranha (1978) as “a cheap and nasty Jaws [1975] knock-off” (“Horror remake really takes the bait”, 2010) and the television series Mistresses (2013–2016) as a “cheap knockoff” of the UK drama (2008–2010) (Perigard, 2013). 12 Remakes have frequently been described as clones by critics, for example, the tel­ evision series In The House (1995–1999) as a “clone” of Who’s the Boss (1984–1992) (Jicha, 1995); Carrie (2013) as a “horror clone” of the 1976 film (May, 2013) and Guess Who (2005) as a “thinly disguised clone of Meet the Parents [2000]” (Hobson, 2005). 13 The phrase pale imitation is frequently used to criticize remakes, for example Kid Galahad (1962) as a “pale imitation” of the 1937 film (Bondanella, 2004, 100), Vanilla Sky (2001) as a “pale imitation” of Abre los ojos (Open Your Eyes) (1997) (Gillespie, 2017) and Poltergeist (2015) as a “pale imitation” of the 1982 film (“Poltergeist review”, 2015). 14 Carbon copy is frequently used by reviewers to criticize remakes, for example, Vil­ lage of the Damned (1995) as a “carbon copy” of the 1960 film (Owen, 1995), Bad News Bears (2005) as a “virtual carbon copy” of the 1976 film (Bellamy, 2005) and The Omen (2006) as a “carbon-copy” of the 1976 film (Iddings, 2006; Mul­ len, 2006; “Going to the Show with a Regular Guy: New ‘Omen’ is eerily famil­ iar”, 2006). While the carbon copy accusation is presented to condemn a remake as unoriginal, there are rare subversions of this. In Andy Breslow’s review of Quarantine (2008) – a remake of the Spanish film [Rec] (2007) – he observes, “When I got a chance to see Quarantine I was pleased to see that the film is almost a carbon copy of the original.” For Breslow it was a positive that the Ameri­ can remake had remained true to what he had enjoyed so much about the Span­ ish film (Breslow, 2008). 15 Pointless is frequently deployed in criticisms of remakes, for example Alfie Dar­ ling (1975) – a remake of Alfie (1966) – as “a crude and vulgar rip-off with no subtlety and no point” (Nowlan and Wright Nowlan, 1989, 15), Ben-Hur (2016) as a “pointless remake” of the 1959 film (Smith, 2017) and Psycho (1998), the remake of the 1960 film, as “a pointless failure” (Canet, 2018, 21). 16 The Plainsman (1966), for example, described as a “painful remake” of the 1936 film (Cameron, 1997, 148); Buddy Buddy (1981) as a “painful remake” of the French film L’emmerdeur (A Pain in the Ass) (1973) (Halliwell and Walker, 1996, 169) and The Ladykillers (2004) as a “painful remake” of the 1955 film (“TOH! Ranks the Films of the Coen Brothers from Worst to Best”, 2016). 17 Critics often use excruciating to describe remakes, for example Lost Horizon (1973) as an “excruciating remake” of the 1937 film (Griffin and Masters, 1997, 73); The Parent Trap (1998) as an “excruciatingly unfunny” remake of the 1961 film (Anthony, 1998) and The Women (2008) as an “excruciating remake” of the 1939 film (Solomons, 2008). 18 Slavish can on occasions be complimentary – describing a remake with, for instance, meticulous attention to detail – for example Let Me In (2010) as a “very faithful, even slavish remake” of the Swedish film Låt den rätte komma in (Let the Right One In) (2008) (“Let Me skip the re-vamp”, 2010). More commonly however, slavish is used as a criticism: Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979) for example, as “an almost slavish remake” of Nosferatu (1922) (Wiener, 2002, 290); Point of No Return (1993) as a “slavish, redundant remake” of La Femme Nikita (1990)

34

The bigger and better remake

(Frank, 1997, 34) and Psycho (1998) as a “faithful-unto-slavish” remake of the 1960 film (Cheshire, 1998). 19 Remakes described as stupid include Gone in 60 Seconds (2000) as a “relent­ lessly stupid” remake of the 1974 film (Maltin, 2014); The Karate Kid (2010) as a “stupid remake” of the 1984 film (Oz, 2010), and Dukes of Hazzard (2005) as “another unnecessary, stupid remake” of the television series (1979–1985) (Wolgamott, 2005). 20 Insipid is often deployed to criticize remakes, for example Red River (1988) as an “insipid remake” of the 1948 film (Clifford, 1998); Born Yesterday (1993) as an “insipid remake” of the 1950 film (Seavor, 1993) and No Reservations (2007) as an “insipid remake” of the German film Mostly Martha (2001) (Lindenfeld and Parasecoli, 2017, 74). 21 Anemic is often deployed to criticize remakes, for example Man in the Attic (1953) as an “anaemic remake” of The Lodger (1927) (O’Neil, 1970, 88); The Clown (1953) as an “anemic remake” of The Champ (1931) (Parish, 1974, 831) and 13 Sins (2014) as an “anemic remake” of the Thai film 13 game sayawng (13 Beloved) (2006) (“Film Review: 13 Sins”, 2014). 22 Inferior is very commonly deployed in criticisms of remakes, for example Satan Met a Lady (1936) as “an inferior remake of The Maltese Falcon (1931) (“Satan Met a Lady”, 1935); The Lost World (1960) as an “inferior remake” of the 1925 film (Kinnard, 1988, 13) and Criminal (2004), the remake of the Argentin­ ian film Nueve reinas (Nine Queens) (2000), as having been “given the inferiorremake treatment” (Bradshaw, 2016). 23 Irrelevant is a common criticisms of remakes, for example, The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008) as an “incompetent, utterly irrelevant remake” of the 1951 film (“The Day the Earth Stood Still”, 2009), Fame (2009) as an “irrelevant remake” of the 1980 film (“Fame? No chance: This irrelevant remake doesn’t light up the sky like a flame”, 2009) and Point Break (2015) as an “irrelevant remake” of the 1991 film (Mann, 2016). 24 Remakes are frequently described as ill-advised, for example Love Affair (1994) as an “ill-advised remake” of the 1939 film (“ ‘Affairs’ of the heart”, 2014), Red Dawn (2012) as “an ill-advised remake of the campy 1984 original” (Coyleap, 2012) and Brighton Rock (2010) as “a moderately stylish but deeply ill-advised remake of John Boulting’s noir thriller [1948]” (“If Pinkie were perky, Brighton might rock”, 2011). 25 Half-hearted is an accusation often leveled at remakes, for example Docks of New Orleans (1948) as “a half-hearted remake of the earlier Mr. Wong film [Mr. Wong, Detective (1938)]” (Backer, 2012, 152); Grease 2 (1982) as a “half-hearted remake” of Grease (1978) (Moore, 2016) and Sleepless (2017) as a “half-hearted remake” of the French film Nuit blanche (Sleepless Night) (2011) (Miller, 2017). 26 Remakes are often described as redundant, for example, The Fog (2005) as “a dreary and redundant remake” of the 1980 film (Tookey, 2006); The Tour­ ist (2010) as a “redundant remake” of the French film Anthony Zimmer (2005) (Stanbrook, 2011) and Secret in their Eyes (2015) as a “redundant remake” of El secreto de sus ojos (The Secret in their Eyes) (2009) (Dowd, 2015). 27 Greenberg, 1998, 115. 28 Film theorists Rüdiger Heinze and Lucia Krämer observe the “enduring conno­ tations of unoriginality” that plague remakes (Heinze and Krämer, 2015, 13). In his Maclean’s article, Brian D. Johnson similarly argues that the remake “makes a virtue of unoriginality” (Johnson, 2009b, 63). The unoriginal claim is, in fact, noted in most discussions of remakes (See for example: Gil, 2014; Smith and Verevis, 2017). 29 Uninspired is used repeatedly to criticize remakes, for example the mini-series Quo Vadis (1985) as an “uninspired remake” of the 1951 film (Smith, 2004, 195);

The bigger and better remake

35

Notorious (1992) as a “tedious, uninspired remake” of the 1946 film (CameronWilson and Speed, 1995, 141) and Fun With Dick and Jane (2005) as an “unin­ spired remake” of the 1977 film (Verniere, 2005). 30 Unnecessary is very frequently deployed to criticize remakes, for example Between Two Worlds (1944) as “an ultimately tedious and unnecessary remake” of Outward Bound (1930) (Nissen, 2012, 70); Swept Away (2002), the remake of the Italian film Travolti da un insolito destino nell’azzurro mare d’agosto (Swept Away) (1974), as “limp, uninspired and unnecessary” (Carter, 2003, 11) and The Last House on the Left (2009) as an “ugly, unnecessary remake” of the 1972 film (Horton, 2009). 31 Communications theorist Alex Bevan observes that “remakes are popularly dis­ missed as creative laziness and a postmodern death of new ideas” (Bevan, 2013, 307). Cultural theorist Joyce Goggin similarly notes that “remakes and sequels remain a much-maligned category, invariably criticised as a form of lassitude on the part of directors and producers who opt out for a known commodity, banking on viewer familiarity with the ‘original’ to guarantee a presold product” (Goggin, 2010, 105). 32 Film theorist Bliss Cua Lim discusses the supposed cannibalism of remakes, observing “The centrality of intertextual repetition in genre films is particularly pronounced in the cannibalism of a remake, which even more emphatically ‘ingests’ its precursors” (Lim, 2009, 195). 33 Film theorists Scott A. Lukas and John Marmysz observe that remakes have “been targeted by critics as a form of pure borrowing – as a sort of cultural para­ site that infects the high art form known as film” (Lukas and Marmysz, 2009b, 3). Cultural theorist Miguel Mera makes a similar observation, noting “many studies simply view the re-invented text as parasitical – cashing-in on the success of the source – as if this is the only reason that re-invention occurs” (Mera, 2009, 2). 34 Important discussions around originality in remaking are had in Mee, 2017; Knöppler, 2017; Klein and Palmer, 2016; Hutcheon and O’Flynn, 2013; Maz­ don, 2000; Horton and McDougal, 1998. 35 “Stop hating remakes – you love them”, 2016. 36 Zeitchik, 2019. 37 Armstrong, 2017. 38 Blair, 2014. 39 Zeitchik, 2019. 40 White, 2003, 187. 41 “Films of the day”, 2011. 42 Foreman, 2000. 43 “Return to the fold”, 2004. 44 Gupta, 2011. 45 “Get it out”, 2005. 46 “Popular 1980s TV show ‘Miami Vice’ comes to silver screen”, 2006. 47 Cunico, 2011. 48 Puig, 2010. 49 Kermode, 2011. 50 Dawson, 2011. 51 “Two visits to 1977”, 2019. 52 Gupta, 2011. 53 Moylan, 2014b. 54 Audience expectations of sound in film explains Hollywood’s long history of remaking silent films. This, however, is not an uncontroversial practice. Pamela Hutchinson in The Guardian, for example, takes umbrage with the apparent necessity to remake silent films to make them “worthwhile”: “what really gives me the heebie-jeebies about this proposed remake is the implicit idea that silent

36

55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81

82 83 84 85 86 87 88

89 90

The bigger and better remake films are lacking, so they need to be remade with sound to have any currency today” (Hutchinson, 2015). Rosewarne, 2019a. Druxman, 1975, 24. Park, 2009, 112. Mazdon, 2000, 22. In Elberse, 2014, 1–2. Corliss, 2005. Toppman, 2006. Mingant, Tirtaine and Augros, 2015; Kerrigan, 2010; Lukk, 1997; Wyatt, 1994. As film theorist Daniel Herbert notes, “we should remember that most films (including sequels and franchises) do not succeed” (Herbert, 2017, 8). Clover, 1992, 20. Johnson, 2009a. In Bray, 2010. Francis Jr., 2013, 164. Eagan, 2010, 196. Horton, 2014. Eagan, 2010, 234. Jennifer Forrest and Leonard Koos argue, “The influence of technological innovations – some would say advances – such as sound, color film, special effects . . . and computer digitalization, are often the reason behind testing new (and often expensive) ground with pre-tested stories” (Forrest and Koos, 2002, 3–4). “Sound film remakes of silent films”, undated. Verevis, 2006. Tod Browning remade his silent film London After Midnight (1927) as Mark of the Vampire (1935) utilizing new sound technologies. Frank Capra similarly remade his black and white film Broadway Bill (1934) as Riding High (1950) in color. In Rapold, 2011. In 1934 the Japanese director Yasujirô Ozu made the silent black and white drama Ukikusa monogatari (A Story of Floating Weeds). In 1959, Ozu remade the film as Ukikusa (Floating Weeds), taking advantage of both color and sound. Kelly, 2001, 225. Birchard, 2004. Verevis, 2006, 3. Natale, 1994. Marketing theorists Björn Bohnenkamp et al. note that “As movies are hedonic products . . . consumers choose them because of the sensations they provide by telling new stories in an unknown way. To produce these sensations, motion pictures must be innovative” (Bohnenkamp, Knapp, Hennig-Thurau and Schauerte, 2015, 18). Bohnenkamp, Knapp, Hennig-Thurau and Schauerte, 2015, 17. Druxman, 1975, 18. Quinn, 2015. Lizardi, 2017, 97. 3D technology dates back to the earliest days of filmmaking, but high costs have historically limited its use (Zone, 2014). Leeder, 2018, 40. Soon after the release of House of Wax (1953), Jack Harrison in The Hollywood Reporter chimed: “Discard all your previous notions of 3D which resulted from inferior gimmick pictures designed solely to cash in with quickie efforts. Mil­ lions will see House of Wax and come back for more” (in Slide, 1996). Leeder, 2018, 40. Perry, 2017, 149.

The bigger and better remake

37

91 Hutchings, 2018, 320. 92 Flesh for Frankenstein (1973) – a riff on the Frankenstein story which had already been filmed many times previously – was a rare 1970s film that made use of 3D technology (“mainly through gleefully dangling human organs and entrails in the audience’s face”) (Hutchings, 2018, 320). 93 Neal, 2016; Rodriguez, 2017; Giardina and McClintock, 2017. 94 Lewis, 2017. 95 DeFore, 2011. 96 Musetto, 2011a. 97 Francis Jr., 2013, 25. 98 Willmore, 2011. 99 Misek, 2010, 147. 100 Hornblow, 2002. 101 Druxman, 1975, 15. 102 Hollinger, 2006, 52. 103 Druxman, 1975, 195. 104 Rice, 2013, 229. 105 Rice, 2013, 229. 106 Raw, 2006, 49. 107 Gilbert, 2008. 108 “Jaden Smith to Star in ‘Karate Kid’ Remake”, 2008. 109 Georgakas, 1998, 74. 110 The preoccupation with stars is not just a US phenomenon. Media scholar Lucia Krämer discusses this in the context of Indian cinema: “Even more so than in Hollywood, the star is the decisive factor for whether a Hindi film actu­ ally gets made. . . . [A]ny new film with one of the megastars thus comes with a built-in audience” (Krämer, 2015, 84). 111 Marshall, 1997, 13. 112 Owen, 2016. 113 Whalley, 2010, 170. 114 Forrest and Koos, 2002, 2. 115 Forrest, 2002b, 178. 116 Forrest, 2002b, 178. 117 Kinnard, 1988, 47. 118 Dalton, 2005. 119 Rosewarne, 2019a, 163. 120 Nowlan and Wright Nowlan, 1989, 9. 121 Abrams, 2011. 122 Keegan, 2018. 123 The films are described as such in several discussions, for example: Nollen, 2013; McGilligan, 1991; McGhee, 1990. 124 In Druxman, 1975, 122. 125 Strick, 2003. 126 This phenomenon is not exclusive to Steven Soderbergh. Discussing autore­ makes, film programmer Jed Rapfogel notes, “It seems that all these directors, like all great filmmakers, are drawn to the same themes” (in Rapold, 2011). 127 Nowlan and Wright Nowlan, 1989, 19. 128 Lentz, 2000, 62. 129 Francis Jr., 2013. 130 Rosewarne, 2019c. 131 Actor Bill Murray made his directing debut co-directing the crime-comedy Quick Change (1990), a remake of the French film Hold-Up (1985). Rob Lowe, similarly, made his directing debut with the television horror movie The Bad Seed (2018), a remake of the 1956 film. 132 Eggert, 2017.

38

The bigger and better remake

133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147

Davis, 2017. Martain, 2018. Salt, 2016, 475. Meehan, 2011, 30. Meuel, 2014, 109. Nissen, 2007, 7; Furia, 1996, 213. “Whitney Houston to appear posthumously in film remake”, 2012. Bass, 2018, 6. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Screenwriting, 2001, 111. Arnold, 1997. Ruimy, 2019 Armstrong, 2011, 3. Orr, 2018. Beck, 1993, 63. Cultural theorist Kathryn Schweishelm observes “the original book and the film touched a nerve in the popular imagination of the 1970s, in part due to the way they addressed the contemporary (and contentious) issue of the women’s liberation movement” (Schweishelm, 2012, 107). Heller, 2017, 83. Monk, 2011, 151. Williams, 2006. “ ‘All the King’s Men’ Tops List of Hollywood’s Biggest Flops”, 2010; “Forbes lists biggest flops of last five years”, 2010; “All the King’s Men”, undated. Rabin, 2007. Other all-star remakes have failed similarly. Jerry Roberts for example, in his Encyclopedia of Television Film Directors, describes Julius Caesar (1970) – an adaptation of the Shakespeare play and a film that had been made repeatedly previously – as a “rather flat all-star version” (Roberts, 2009, 66). Brown, 2011. Dixon and Foster, 2011, 64. Gibron, 2010. Toumarkine, 2006. Ryan, 2015. Ryan, 2015. Hutcheon and O’Flynn, 2013, 88. Mazdon, 2000, 83. Film historian Thomas Elsaesser, for example, summarizes the generalizations made about American and European films: “Europe stands for art, and the US for pop; Europe for high culture, America for mass entertainment; Europe for artisanal craft, America for industrial mass production” (Elsaesser, 2005, 300). Film theorist James Kendall makes a similar point: “The trajectory from the original to the remake is seen as a vertical one, from the high culture repre­ sented by the French art cinema to the commercialism of Hollywood pander­ ing to mass taste and entertainment” (Kendall, 2017, 217). Park, 2009, 119. Horton, 2014. Grimm, 2008. “Dangerous? This is Bangkok Boring”, 2008. Jenkins, 2008.

148 149 150 151 152 153

154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162

163 164 165 166 167

2

The economic remake

Hollywood film and television are commercial products. Yes, they’re enter­ taining, and indeed they can also be artistic, educative or even tools of propaganda, but primarily their production is motivated by money: studios want people to pay to see their output. While critics often posit a dearth of creativity in American media – lamenting that the industry is now only about money and that artistry has fallen by the wayside (Chapter 5) – the relationship between art and money is inextricable, and this is nothing new: as cultural theorist Dianna Anderson reminds us, “Much of the art we have in museums exists because someone paid for it.”1 Film theorist Joyce Goggin makes this point as specifically related to remakes: The notion that remakes and sequels are always primarily about money rather than aesthetics reposes on pessimistic, postlapsarian ideas about art, rife with the suggestion that there was once a Golden Age when artistic production was ‘original’ and free from vulgar commercial motives.2 Cultural theorists Amanda Ann Klein and R. Barton Palmer also discuss these ideas: Critical disdain for texts appearing in multiplicities is rooted in the neo­ romantic belief that art should somehow not be concerned with making money, that a television series that unabashedly courts the audience’s desires is somehow less artful, less complex, or less worthwhile than one that exists to thwart, complicate, or comment on those desires.3 While popular culture is – by its very nature – frequently accused of commer­ cialism, remakes are often specifically condemned as being disproportion­ ately profit-motivated: that the act of remaking is driven only by economic forces – more so than other kinds of media – and that such productions are crass efforts that capitalize on a past success to milk further dollars from viewers: to quote Marshall Fine’s summary of “Hollywood wisdom” in a USA Today article, “If it made money, make it again.”4 Alison Willmore makes a

40

The economic remake

similar point in Buzzfeed in the context of the live-action Beauty and the Beast (2017) – the remake of the 1991 animation: “It’s a masterstroke of corpo­ rate calculation (you loved this once, so why not buy it again?).”5 This chapter analyzes the economic justification for remaking. I begin by examining the accusation of such material as overtly capitalistic and then counter the proposition that remakes are somehow more commercial than their source material. I examine the notion of a risk-averse Hollywood and present a range of reasons why remakes are financially attractive to studios. I explore the ways that Hollywood makes money from remakes – including to further populate their back catalogue – and I end this chapter by iden­ tifying some of the economic risks of reproduction, observing that, while such productions might be less risky, they aren’t risk-free.

Understanding the capitalist accusation A recurrent accusation levelled in reviews and analyses is that remakes are opportunistic cash-grabs concocted by greedy studios: that they are knock­ offs, pale imitations, rip-offs and clones of a sacrosanct “original.”6 Christian Knöppler, in his work on horror films, observes that remakes are frequently derided as “easy cash-ins,”7 and film theorist Miguel Mera identifies that of the deluge of criticisms directed at remakes, their status as “cashing in on the success of the source” is the most common.8 Alistair Rolls and Deborah Walker, in their work on film-noir, similarly spotlight that it is “the eco­ nomics of the remake that leads to its dismissal as a debased form.”9 In a Moviehole review of The Hustle (2019) – the remake of Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (1988), itself a remake of Bedtime Story (1964) – K.T. Simpson alludes to this same cash-grab idea: “it’s hard to understand why Hollywood are mix­ ing up old films, but I imagine the only answer comes in the form of a pay day.”10 The Lion King (2019) – the remake of the 1994 film – was repeat­ edly subjected to accusations of studio greed, criticized as “Disney’s latest cash-grab,”11 and “obviously a cash grab by Disney.”12 Even in Angie Han’s comparatively enthusiastic Mashable review, she acknowledges that the 2019 Lion King is “a lovingly envisioned, lavishly produced, and painstakingly crafted cash grab.”13 While the cash-grab idea is commonly connected to the belief that a remake somehow exploits both its predecessor and its audi­ ence, this criticism also has a series of offshoots. Critics, for example, have accused studios of cashing-in specifically on nostalgia (explored further in Chapter 3),14 cashing-in on the broader industry fervor for remaking15 and cashing-in on certain happenings in the zeitgeist and popular culture mar­ ket (Chapter 6). The criticism of a remake as a cash-grab or as “cashing-in” on a past suc­ cess is premised on several assumptions. First, the accusation problemat­ ically implies that only the remake is the cash-in, whereas apparently its predecessor was, in contrast, a work of art. In reality, however, in almost all examples both the source material and the remake are entertainment

The economic remake

41

products: they are both sold to audiences with the primary objective of making money. While the first film might have been a smaller production without a high box office (Chapter 1), this commonly wasn’t by design: filmmakers almost never make films with the hope that they’re unsuccessful; normally everyone involved wants their production widely seen and enjoyed. Holly­ wood output is commercial, and thus making money is a central objective: as David Wills argues in his work on US remakes of French films, Hollywood is “an institution concerned with nothing more than what is bankable.”16 This means that studio remakes are cash-ins, but as we’re reminded in a Mega Nerd Media article, “so is the case for every other movie.”17 The patina of “more commercial” or “less commercial” as used in remake reviews rou­ tinely disregards the financial motives of all Hollywood films. While the pre­ decessor might appear riskier or edgier and thus seem more artistic than a big budget studio production, again, having to do things “on the cheap” is rarely a choice, and deeming films as “artistic” purely because of their shoestring budget and makeshift stagecraft is naïve analysis. Second, the cash-in accusation routinely conceives of first films as some­ how sacred and untouchable, with certain examples bearing the weight of this classification more than others: Alfred Hitchcock’s 1960 Psycho, for example, was frequently viewed as an untouchable original, and thus Gus Van Sant’s 1998 remake was repeatedly criticized as blasphemous and trea­ sonous (Chapter 3). Partly – and indeed ironically – this sacred and untouch­ able perception is often driven by the very existence of the remake. As part of the apparent truism that the “original” is always better,18 through being reproduced, source material is often elevated to a status it often never had at the time of its release19: the earlier film is retrospectively deemed to have heightened artistic merit – and as somehow having been less concerned with the box office than the new iteration – because it was considered worth remaking. Subsequently – and as discussed further in Chapter 3 – the first film often becomes more highly regarded, if not even canonical, based on the belief that having been chosen for reproduction means it must have been good (thus functioning as an illustration of the imitation is the best form of flattery adage). Connected to these ideas is the criticism – and something underpinned by the broader denunciation of capitalism – that making money is somehow bad or uncouth, that films that make money are somehow less worthy and less creative than those that don’t, something Klein and Palmer discuss: The perception of Hollywood as exclusively a commercial enterprise makes its recourse to the remake reflect the worst in capitalist produc­ tion, a type of production where catering to the tastes of a mass public entails forfeiting on film substance.20 The notion of catering to the tastes of a mass public alludes to the standard criti­ cism levelled at popular culture: that seeking popularity and aiming for a

42

The economic remake

broad audience is problematic, and thus giving audiences what they want is somehow at odds with artistry. Such ideas are explored further in Chapter 4 in my discussion on “Americanization” and the belief that once a film is, for example, remade by American studios for American audiences, it gets dumbed-down and sanitized and is rendered less a piece of art and more a mere low-brow commodity. Third, another cash-in criticism lies in the fact that the remake is con­ sidered less valuable because it’s perceived as less original: as film theorist Kenneth Chan observes, remakes are routinely considered as a “filmic form of secondariness” and “exploited for its box office potential.”21 Such ideas posit that remakes are a lesser quality facsimile of the source material, a case that Melissa Findley makes in The Orlando Sentinel: Have you ever noticed that when you make a copy of something, it’s never as good as the original? It doesn’t matter how you do it. No mat­ ter how good the technology, you can never duplicate the original; it always ends up like the fourth clone in Multiplicity [1996]. Yeah, it looks kind of like the original, but it’s sort of off.22 Such an idea alludes to the economics concept of “diminishing returns,”23 an idea flagged in several remake discussions, whereby a case of a progres­ sive decline in quality is articulated. In Peter Bradshaw’s Guardian discus­ sion of the thriller Secret in their Eyes (2015), for example – a remake of the Argentinian film El secreto de sus ojos (The Secret in their Eyes) (2009) – he argues that it was “remade with diminished returns.”24 In Dennis Harvey’s Variety discussion of Géla Babluani’s 13 (2010) – Babluani’s US autoremake of his film French film 13 Tzameti (2006) – Harvey contends, “not since The Vanishing (1988/1993) has a director remade his foreign-language break­ out feature to such diminishing returns as with 13.”25 Laurence Phelan in The Independent makes the same point in his discussion of Let Me In (2010), the US remake of the Swedish film Låt den rätte komma in (Let the Right One In) (2008): All remakes are subject to the law of diminishing returns, and the effect is especially pronounced when the original is as tender, poetic and restrained as the 2008 Swedish pubescent vampire/love story Let the Right One In.26 Diminishing returns are, in fact, mentioned in several articles on remakes,27 whereby it is contended that studios get a smaller return on investment – that subsequent remakes “dilute their value through overexposure”28 – with each incarnation, and, in turn, audiences get a lesser-quality film. The notion of remakes as “less good” is, in part, premised on the assump­ tion that to remake means to steal from a precious, authoritative original. With this in mind, a fourth and more complicated underpinning to the

The economic remake

43

cash-in idea is the belief that remakes are somehow parasitical and that their production both “steals” from its source material and prevents the earlier film’s success. While studios have, in bygone eras, taken active measures to prevent the success of source material (discussed later in this chapter), generally such success or lack thereof has absolutely nothing to do with a remake: the earlier film’s fortunes are commonly determined long before a remake project is even mooted. Historically films had to do their busi­ ness during their cinema release; certainly so in the days prior to video: the box office was thus the primary determinant of success. Nowadays, however, while a strong box office remains important, media has several other ways to become successful – even years after a film has left cinemas – and thus original material can potentially have second or third lives, something that is often attributable to the very existence of a remake and a predecessor being elevated because of reproduction, something addressed by cultural theorist Ben Kooyman: As time has proven, box office is by no means an accurate measure of a film’s shelf life: films as diverse as Frank Capra’s It’s a Wonderful Life (1946) and John Carpenter’s The Thing (1982), to name just two that performed moderately poorly and were critically misunderstood on their initial theatrical release, went on to have rich afterlives despite their troubled receptions.29 Both films nominated by Kooyman were, in part, elevated by their repro­ duction. Kooyman’s ideas also apply to television. The thriller series You (2018–), for example, first aired on the US cable channel Lifetime to mod­ est audiences. When the series moved onto the streaming service Netflix, however, it became an instant and global hit: the series found a new life outside of its initial run,30 and a second series was commissioned. Such a case is a reminder that when media is easy (and relatively cheap) to access, audiences can go back and watch source material with greater convenience; remaking often instigates this process. In many reviews of the musical melo­ drama A Star is Born (2018) and the period drama Little Women (2019), for example, audiences were encouraged to go back and watch the many filmic predecessors. Doing so today is easier than ever before. Accusations that remakes usurp their predecessors are particularly potent in discussions of American transnational remakes, whereby the US version inevitably becomes the film most people come to know, whereas the foreign predecessor fades from memory. As I explore in Chapter 4, few films that are made in languages other than English fare well outside of box offices in their own nation. I would therefore suggest that the produc­ tion of an American remake doesn’t actually take anything from the earlier film, nor can it inhibit its success – after all, the foreign film may have faded regardless – rather, the remake can in fact, create and even sustain an aware­ ness of the source material, motivating some viewers to seek it out.

44

The economic remake

A final element to the cash-in argument – and a concept returned to later in this chapter – lies in the opportunity cost argument: that when studios cash in on the success of an earlier title through a remake, a newer and more original film doesn’t get made. Film theorists Anna Westerstål Sten­ port and Garrett Traylor discuss this, arguing: “Historically, remaking is not a new phenomenon to film, yet it is often regarded as lesser or as a cheap tactic for commercial gain rather than as a culturally generative practice.”31 While opportunity cost concerns are addressed throughout this chapter – and throughout this book more broadly – the counter argument is that remaking has existed since the earliest days of Hollywood (Chapter 1). To assert, therefore, that the medium is no longer culturally generative ignores the advances that have made in over a century of filmmaking, throughout which time remakes have always been produced. A key reason that studios reproduce media is because they are risk-averse: filmmaking is expensive, studios have shareholders, and thus the projects pursued are those perceived as having the best chance of providing a return on investment.

Risk-aversion In his work on remakes, film theorist Daniel Herbert argues, “we should remember that most films (including sequels and franchises) do not suc­ ceed.”32 The idea that most films that are released – and, also, most tel­ evision shows that screen – aren’t successful might seem obvious: of course everything can’t be a winner; that said, in a world where production costs are high and rising (Chapter 1), producers want to take as many precau­ tions as possible and thus favor material perceived as less risky. One of the most influential drivers behind remake production is Hol­ lywood wanting output that generates revenue. In Chapter 1 I explored the kinds of projects that are deemed economically “safer,” hence the domi­ nance of “blockbuster” projects made in the hope that spending vast sums of money on a big film will help to ensure box office success. As director Roger Donaldson explains, “What people are looking for, when they invest $30 million to make a movie and then another $20 million to promote it, is to lay the risk.”33 Joe Roth, then chairman of the Walt Disney Motion Pic­ ture Group, posits a similar case: It’s about money and risk aversion. . . . It costs so much to make mov­ ies that people are worried about completely new ideas. So you try to remake movies that have worked. It gives you a sense of comfort that an audience once thought it was a good idea.34 Remaking a project that has had previous success operates on the assump­ tion that the concept has already demonstrated its appeal to audiences. Film theorist Constantine Verevis spotlights this idea in his work on remakes,

The economic remake

45

noting that such productions “are consistently thought to provide suitable models, and something of a financial guarantee, for the development of studio-based projects.”35 Media analyst Paul Dergarabedian presents a simi­ lar analysis: The whole idea with that — just like with anything that’s sequel-ized, franchised, rebooted or remade — is that there is a built-in familiarity with the source material, and that theoretically gives you a leg up.36 Film theorist Lucy Mazdon also discusses these ideas: Increasing film budgets meant an attendant decrease in the willingness of the Majors to take risks. This in turn led to the industry’s growing reli­ ance upon the aforementioned blockbusters as well as sequels, series, reissues and remakes. This latter group of films reduced risk as they involved formats (narratives or characters) that had already proved suc­ cessful either in the contemporary domestic market (sequels or series), an earlier domestic market (reissues and remakes of Hollywood films), or an overseas market (remakes of foreign productions).37 In Chapter 3 I discuss the repeated reproduction of certain stories – often­ times those constituting the Western literature canon – which manage to find ways to ingratiate themselves with each generation. While in Chap­ ter 3 I contend that the enduring appeal of such material is attributable to reasons of nostalgia and audience appreciation of well-told stories, as film theorist James Limbacher flags, risk-aversion also plays a part: “There is security in a good story, even though it has been done many times before, and it will show up again and again for economic and aesthetic reasons.”38 While being risk-averse might be standard operating procedure for Hol­ lywood studios, this situation isn’t without criticism. The first criticism lies in the aforementioned opportunity cost, and thus, those films that don’t get made when remake projects are pursued. In Dodai Stewart’s Jezebel article about the 2012 all-black remake of the melodrama Steel Magnolias (1989) for example, she writes “every time Hollywood greenlights a remake, a writer with an original idea sobs and blows her nose in the pages of her rejected manuscript.”39 Bill Keveney makes a similar comment in his USA Today article on remakes, asking: “What happens to a Millennial George Lucas? ‘Sorry, kid. We’re dredging up The Love Boat [1977–1987].’ ”40 Steven Gaydos, former editor of Variety, addresses this same concern: Without a film that can work on thousands of screens and draw in big audiences based upon a presold property, i.e., a remake, sequel, bestseller, major star vehicle, no one will commit the money to mar­ keting the film. So we’re getting a certain kind of film, the McMovie, and there’s a growing sameness to what works in these big mainstream

46

The economic remake releases. Thirty years ago in 1984 films like Amadeus [1984] and The Natural [1984] were all top hits. Would they get green lights today? I doubt it.41

Several film producers have also expressed concern that the kinds of “origi­ nal” films that had box office success in previous eras would never have been produced in today’s risk-averse landscape. Film producer Lynda Obst, for example, comments: “Field of Dreams [1989]? The Big Chill [1983]? Moon­ struck [1987]? No way, not today.”42 Film producer Laura Ziskin was asked by The Hollywood Reporter about which films she thought wouldn’t get made in the current market, and she provides a similar answer: All of them. No Way Out [1987], To Die For [1995], The Doctor [1991]. Those movies wouldn’t have been made today. Pretty Woman [1990], even that, an R-rated comedy, wouldn’t happen. The mainstream movie business has become increasingly narrow.43 The obvious cost to this risk-aversion is that the major studios frequently elect to fund projects that seem most likely to make money instead of taking an expensive gamble on projects with less surefire appeals. While Gaydos, Obst and Ziskin point to a range of original films that succeeded at the box office, such success stories aren’t actually the norm in Hollywood, and, in fact, the pursuit of originality is a very risky strategy that seldom pays off. In his Variety discussion of Disney’s box office flop Tomorrowland (2015), for example, Brett Lang argues that the film points to a “nagging problem in Hollywood”: “As much as people claim they love fresh and unique movies, they’re more likely to shell out money for sequels and reboots.”44 Dave Hollis, Disney’s distribution chief, similarly exhibited awareness of this issue noting that, “Tomorrowland is an original movie and that’s more of a challenge in this marketplace.”45 On one hand, Tomorrowland was always going to struggle in the contem­ porary media market: Derek Thompson spotlights this in The Atlantic: “The problem for Hollywood is that audiences are ignoring everything that isn’t a sequel, adaptation, or reboot. The market for films based on stories that aren’t already famous is threadbare.”46 While this point broadly describes an audience predisposed to partaking of known pleasures – be they remakes, reboots, or franchise expansions – it also spotlights audience risk-aversion. Whether Tomorrowland flopped because it was original or simply because it wasn’t a good film is debatable, but its failure nonetheless highlights numerous challenges incurred in the contemporary media marketplace. First, in many Tomorrowland reviews, the adjective confusing was used,47 a criticism unimaginable for most remakes or sequels given that the material is, generally, already well-known to audiences. Unlike remakes or franchise expansions, a title like Tomorrowland – with its unfamiliar characters and new storyline – needs to sell itself from scratch. In turn, audiences need to

The economic remake

47

decide whether to take a risk on such a production, alternatively, to spend their money on something they have greater familiarity with and alreadyestablished fondness for. In his discussion of the film releases of 2017, Chris Barsanti observes that the most successful film that year was the aforemen­ tioned live-action Beauty and the Beast and flags that its box office domi­ nance “suggests nothing more than increasingly risk-averse audiences.”48 Whether audiences have become risk-averse because our popular culture is so dominated by nostalgia (Chapter 3) or whether nostalgic content is so popular because audiences are naturally risk-averse, nevertheless, a film like Tomorrowland needs to sell itself to audiences harder than other kinds of films. Taking a chance on an original film – having to not only inform audiences about its existence but sell a case to them about why they should be interested in these new characters and this new story – is thus less desir­ able for studios than the surer bet of a remake. In 2016, actor and director Jodie Foster claimed, “I think this is the most risk-averse period in movie history. Now so many things have changed in terms of the economy, the structure of studios.”49 Foster reflects a theme apparent in contemporary discussions about risk-aversion that frame it as a contemporary concern. In fact, Hollywood has always been commercial, and thus money has always been an issue and a scarce resource. There is, how­ ever, a case to be made that at certain times purse-strings have been tighter – resources even scarcer – and money thus had heightened influence on media production. Mazdon, for example, identifies that risk-aversion was a tactic deployed during the Great Depression when remakes were often produced as a means to offset risk, noting that such films “provided a solu­ tion to this [economic] tension: they were not entirely new and untested yet at the same time they permitted a reworking which enabled novelty.”50 Literary theorist Linda Hutcheon makes a similar point, spotlighting that risk-aversion has long been a force in the broader entertainment indus­ try: “nineteenth-century Italian composers of that notoriously expensive art form, opera, usually chose to adapt reliable – that is, already financially successful – stage plays or novels in order to avoid financial risks.”51 More broadly, cultural theorists Jennifer Forrest and Leonard Koos spotlight that remakes have been produced whenever the industry has experienced a slump: “The remake has appeared wherever audience attendance has been low or threatened because of the advent of rival technologies like radio, television, and video.”52 In more recent years, the insecurity felt after 9/11 has been presented as an explanation for the slew of remakes in the early 2000s,53 ditto the Global Financial Crisis in 2007–2008: as cultural theorist Kathleen Loock explained in 2016: “During the recent financial crisis and global recession . . ., these critics argue, remaking has become a very attrac­ tive business plan for Hollywood.”54 Arguably the challenges posed by the internet and streaming services explains the preponderance of remakes in the twenty-first century. Whether or not, as Jodie Foster argues, this is the most risk-averse time in Hollywood, nonetheless, it is safe to say that the

48

The economic remake

industry is risk-averse and that this, in part, explains the preponderance of remakes. Given that all filmmaking is expensive and only getting more so and that – as discussed in Chapter 1 – there is a propensity for remakes to be made bigger and better, it seems almost antithetical that reproduction is often considered as an affordable option. There are, however, several key factors that position remakes as cheaper than producing wholly new films. With the greater likelihood of remakes succeeding, their production can be understood as a means to prevent loss of money. Further, the ability to attract investors to an established title serves as a way to get money. Remakes, however, also create ways to save money. In the sections that follow I scope the different ways that remakes are cost-effective for studios, beginning with the aforementioned supposition that remaking prevents the success of source material, thus eliminating the competition.

Destroying the competition Key in negative discourse around remaking is the accusation that a new film usurps the earlier film: that through the reproduction of a new and shiny incarnation, a predecessor gets forgotten. Film theorist Leo Braudy makes this point, contending that “the remade film is less frequently a homage or revival than an effort to supplant its predecessor entirely.”55 Mazdon similarly alludes to this Oedipal driver, referencing “what [literary theorist] Harold Bloom termed ‘the anxiety of influence’, an Oedipal struggle to overthrow the ‘original’ and to adopt this status for the reproduction.’ ”56 While com­ pletely forgetting an earlier film is, as noted, much less possible in an era of vast technologies for media storage and distribution – compounded with extensive online film databases and discussions, preventing anything ever truly disappearing – nonetheless, this idea of wanting to destroy competi­ tion or, as film theorist James Morrison suggests, “neutralize competition,”57 is recurrent in discussions on remakes. Mazdon quotes P.A. Harlé, editor of a film trade publication, who claims that remakes “are produced simply in order to make money and then in the process they prevent the success of the ‘original’ film.”58 Film theorist Myoungsook Park explores the same thing in her more recent work on transnational remakes, suggesting that such productions can be interpreted as designed to “protect the US domes­ tic market from foreign films.”59 Competition-neutralization becomes particularly relevant as related to distribution. Cultural theorist Helena Goscilo identifies several factors underpinning American audiences’ aversion to foreign cinema including “the industrial and commercial dominance of Hollywood, the resented behemoth in world cinema, owing principally to its volume of production and the lucrative popularity of its mainstream films worldwide.”60 Whereas a film made in France, for example, has either a life in French-speaking

The economic remake

49

countries or, alternatively, a brief presence in arthouse and independent cinemas in the US (Chapter 4), American films get distributed globally. As film theorist Steve Jankowiak flags, “English is not only the international language of commerce but also that of cinema,”61 and thus American films are consumed in a much wider range of places simply by virtue of the preva­ lence of English and the worldwide distribution of American films. Because more people see American films than the output of other countries, a title like the Western The Magnificent Seven (1960) ultimately becomes better known than its Japanese predecessor Shichinin no samurai (Seven Samurai) (1954); the blockbuster comedy Three Men and a Baby (1987) becomes bet­ ter known than its French predecessor, 3 hommes et un couffin (Three Men and a Cradle) (1985) and the widely celebrated crime-drama The Departed (2006), becomes better known than its Hong Kong predecessor Mou gaan dou (Infernal Affairs) (2002). While neutralizing competition can be achieved simply by an American remake becoming the universal version, neutralization has also occurred throughout history in more physical ways. The very low distribution of for­ eign films in the US means that such titles simply don’t get widely seen, and if a film isn’t screened in a multiplex, its chances of becoming a box office success or making a dent on culture are negligible: as Park explains, “True Lies [1994] is definitely a Twentieth Century Fox commodity with no obliga­ tion to reference La Totale [1991]. True Lies has access to countless places where La Totale cannot go.”62 Mazdon provides a more active example of this, observing that after the American rights to the French crime-drama Pépé le Moko (1937) were purchased – the film was then remade in the US as Algiers (1938) – the studio also “purchased all prints of the film to prevent its release in the United States before that of the remake.”63 Literally block­ ing the access of a foreign film to a marketplace – albeit fueled by the belief, as discussed in Chapter 4, that Americans won’t watch foreign content – ensures dominance of a US remake. Historically, there have also been instances when predecessors were quite literally eliminated following reproduction. Cultural theorist Daniel Varn­ dell discusses this in his work on remakes, exploring Gaslight (1944), the US remake of the 1940 British mystery-drama and also the thriller Fatal Attraction (1987), the remake of the British film Diversion (1980), flagging the role of physical neutralization of competition: When the producers of [Fatal Attraction] bought the rights [to Diver­ sion], they also attempted to buy all the copies of the original in order to destroy them, thereby restricting the competition. This was by no means the first time this had happened. When Thorold Dickinson’s British thriller, Gaslight . . . was remade by George Cukor in Hollywood for MGM, the producers went one step further, purchasing the rights to the negatives of the original, which they promptly destroyed.64

50

The economic remake

Such destruction was also happening on a larger scale during the silent film era; something David Pierce examines as part of his exploration of why so few American silent films exist today: When a film was sold to another company for a remake, the contract often required that all copies of the original be destroyed, with the occasional exception of a reference print. Paramount sold George Mel­ ford’s The Unknown (1915) to Universal, agreeing ‘to destroy the nega­ tive . . . and all prints thereof in possession of the seller, except one print which the seller shall retain for library purposes.’65 By making the earlier film difficult to access – either by limiting its distri­ bution or by destroying it altogether – a remake can achieve marketplace dominance, thus taking the lion’s share of revenue for a particular story. Remakes can help studios save money by allowing them to skimp on writ­ ing costs. When a script from an earlier version is available, production costs are reduced, as examined in the next section.

Script savings Rolls and Walker observe that one of the key motivations behind remaking is “saving time and money required for the development of new ideas: sto­ ryline, screenplay and script.”66 In this section I unpack these ideas, exam­ ining the ways that reproduction is motivated by saving money, specifically related to scripts. Public domain properties A key example of cost-saving lies in instances where public domain mate­ rial is refilmed. Much of the material comprising the Western literature canon is out of copyright. Studios, therefore, can film these stories over and over again without incurring royalty costs. This explains why there are so many (re)adaptations of out-of-copyright works by authors like William Shakespeare,67 Lewis Carroll,68 Jane Austen,69 Arthur Conan Doyle,70 H.G. Wells71 and Robert Louis Stevenson72 and also potentially illuminates why studios keep being drawn back to these works every few years. In his work on remakes, Michael Druxman discusses adaptations of Stevenson stories, noting that the novel The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1886) has “been filmed more than any other story of that genre.”73 Aside from such stories being in the public domain, these properties are also distinctly attractive to studios because they have already been canonized as culturally good and worthy, and audiences have already demonstrated their willing­ ness to consume endless screen incarnations (Chapter 3). Communica­ tions theorists Colleen Kennedy-Karpat and Eric Sandberg also observe that “audiences will often rely on prestige to decide what merits their

The economic remake

51

attention.”74 Re-adaptations of canonical literature undoubtedly fit this prestige bill. Saving on royalties A different kind of saving as related to scripts is evidenced in the produc­ tion of unofficial remakes: in such examples, while it may appear obvious to many critics and audiences that they are watching a remake, the new film’s status as such is unacknowledged and royalties are not paid and credit is not given. In his taxonomy of remakes, film theorist Robert Eberwein identifies one type as those whose “status is denied by the director,” nominating the thriller Blow-Up (1966) and its apparent remake, The Conversation (1974), as illustration.75 A range of films are called-out in reviews as unofficial remakes or thinly disguised remakes, for example: • The comedy A Southern Yankee (1948) as an “unofficial remake” of The General (1926).76 • The musical Wabash Avenue (1950) as a “thinly disguised remake” of Coney Island (1943).77 • The romcom Beach Party (1963) as a “thinly disguised” remake of Gidget (1959).78 • The Western A Fistful of Dollars (1964) as an “unofficial remake” of the Japanese samurai film Yôjinbô (Yojimbo) (1961).79 • The thriller Once You Kiss a Stranger . . . (1969) as a “thinly disguised remake” of Strangers on a Train (1951).80 • The action-comedy The Cannonball Run (1981) as “a thinly disguised remake of a far superior film called The Gumball Rally [1976].”81 • The romcom Notting Hill (1999) as a “re-upholstered” Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994).82 • The action-drama The Fast and The Furious (2001) as “a thinly-disguised remake of Point Break (1991).”83 • The British period-drama series Downton Abbey (2010–2015) as a “thinly disguised remake” of Upstairs Downstairs (1971–1975).84 • The comedy Due Date (2010) as an “unofficial remake” of Planes, Trains and Automobiles (1987).85 • The comedy Horrible Bosses (2011) as an “unofficial remake” of Nine to Five (1980).86 • The thriller The Roommate (2011) as an “unofficial remake” of Single White Female (1992).87 • The comedy The Watch (2012) an “unofficial remake” of The ’Burbs (1989).88 • The animation The Secret Life of Pets (2016) as a “thinly disguised clone of Toy Story [1995].”89 • The black comedy The Art of Self-Defense (2019) as feeling “like an unof­ ficial remake” of Fight Club (1999).90

52

The economic remake

The same idea is articulated through reviews that dismiss a film as not much more than a remake: • The action film Creed II (2018) “isn’t much more than a remake of Rocky IV [1985].”91 • The action film Skyscraper (2018) as “really not much more than a remake of Die Hard [1988] transplanted to Hong Kong.”92 • The horror film House of 1000 Corpses (2003) “wasn’t much more than a remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre [1974] on testosterone.”93 • The action-comedy Crocodile Dundee II (1988) as “not much more than a remake of the first Dundee [1986].”94 It is these kinds of productions that best illustrate the “theft” allegations repeatedly made by critics, whereby such remakes are derided as rip-offs and clones (Chapter 1). While there are, of course, still writers employed to work on these unofficial remakes – readapting or updating dialogue to reflect the contemporary vernacular, for example95 – money is saved by not hav­ ing to develop a wholly new project, something noted by Rolls and Walker earlier.96 As flagged in this book’s Introduction – and something I expand on in greater detail elsewhere97 – the notion of originality is highly problematic in the context of media-making, notably given that all stories are in some ways derivative. These films, for example, could each just as easily be inter­ preted less as remakes and more so as films that simply cash in on a suc­ cessful theme or fad: is Notting Hill, for example, really a remake of Four Weddings and a Funeral, or is it just reflective of the oeuvre of writer Richard Curtis, who penned both? Further, such an idea is relevant to the work of many auteurs whereby, as discussed in Chapter 1, the question of whether they are remaking themselves repeatedly is mooted. Both genre conven­ tions and certain trends in filmmaking can also give the impression of a film being a remake even if, perhaps, the label is not wholly appropriate or accurate, something explored further in Chapter 6. While regularly scrutinized for plagiarism, nonetheless, unacknowledged or denied remakes are cheaper options deployed by studios to reduce costs. These unacknowledged remakes have repeatedly been made in Hollywood, and such productions are notoriously rife in India, for example, where American films are commonly remade without attribution (Chapter 4). Milking a script In discussing his 1998 remake of Psycho (1960), director Gus Van Sant gives insight into some of the economic whys of remaking, reflecting on his expe­ riences with studio executives: What these guys were suggesting was that there are plenty of movies that people have forgotten. They have the original scripts on file, and

The economic remake

53

you get to rob the script, change it anyway you want, and basically dis­ tort the pre-existent material.98 Along with Van Sant’s interesting allusion to theft, a noteworthy point here is that, for properties that are owned by studios, it is highly desirable for them to be repeatedly reworked so that a studio gets added return on their investment. Druxman discusses an example of this transpiring at Warner Brothers: Warner Brothers was constantly switching their old stories around. Hi, Nellie, a 1934 light-weight newspaper yarn starring Paul Muni, became Love is on the Air with Ronald Reagan in 1937, You Can’t Escape Forever with George Brent in 1942, and as late as 1949 was utilized as The House Across the Street starring Wayne Morris.99 Druxman observes that in the 1930s and 1940s, “[studio e]xecutives like Jack Warner and [Darryl] Zanuck reasoned that the public wouldn’t notice or wouldn’t care that they were paying to see the same story over again every few years.”100 Limbacher makes the same point: Every decade or so, producers reason, there is a new audience attending the movies and watching television and oldtimers don’t seem to mind seeing the same plot again if done well – and perhaps differently.101 This idea was the underpinning of a self-referential joke made in 21 Jump Street (2012) – the film adaptation of the TV series (1987–1991) – when Captain Hardy (Nick Offerman) tells officers Schmidt (Jonah Hill) and Jenko (Channing Tatum), about the resurrection of the undercover pro­ gram and, in turn, provides a humorous in-text reference to Hollywood’s propensity to recycle: We’re reviving a cancelled undercover policy program from the ’80s and revamping it for modern times. You see, the guys in charge of this stuff lack creativity and are completely out of ideas, so all they do now is recycle shit and expect us all not to notice. A similar joke is made in the opening scene of Charlie’s Angels (2000) when, while on a plane, Mr. Jones (LL Cool J) is perusing the inflight entertain­ ment and sees a film titled T.J. Hooker: The Movie, and complains about it being yet “another movie from an old TV show.” This barb, of course, nods to the 2000 Charlie’s Angels itself being an adaptation of a television show. Such jokes work as both an in-text allusion to the film’s own status as a remake whilst also nodding to a knowing audience. As discussed in Chap­ ter 3, for some audiences, pleasure is found in comparing versions, and also in spotting allusions and Easter eggs.

54

The economic remake

There is a long history of studios remaking their back catalogue and this practice continues today. Karl Quinn, writing for the Sydney Morning Herald, discusses Disney’s business model of mining its own rich library: One advantage for Disney is that it owns the intellectual property in much of its back catalogue and, where it doesn’t, the stories are often in the public domain anyway. But with budgets north of $100 million now typical, it needs big returns on these films – and that means big audiences.102 A range of films have been made more than once by the same studio, high­ lighting attempts to comprehensively milk a property to save on writers’ fees and to increase the return on investment: • Warner Brothers made the film-noir The Maltese Falcon (1931), then remade it as Satan Met a Lady (1936) and then again as The Maltese Falcon (1941). The same studio made the horror film Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933), and then remade it twice more as House of Wax in 1953 and 2005. Warner Brothers also produced Ocean’s 11 (1960), its 2001 remake and then the 2018 sex-swap remake Ocean’s 8. • MGM made the silent biblical epic Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ (1925), then remade it as Ben-Hur in 1959 and again in 2016. The same studio made the horror film Carrie in 1976, 2002 and again in 2013. • Twentieth Century Fox made State Fair (1933), then remade it in 1945 and then again in 1962. The same studio made the film-noir Kiss of Death (1947), remade it as The Fiend Who Walked the West (1958) and then again as Kiss of Death (1995). Fox also made the Christmas film Miracle on 34th Street in 1947, 1973 and again in 1994 and made Anna and the King (1946), remade it as The King and I (1956), then as Anna and the King (1999). • Disney made four versions of the body-swap comedy Freaky Friday (1976, 1996, 2003 and 2008), and four riffs on Robert Louis Stevenson’s story Treasure Island (1883): as Disney’s first ever live-action film in 1950, as the television mini-series Return to Treasure Island in 1986, as Muppet Treasure Island (1996) and as the animated Treasure Planet (2002). Dis­ ney also made three adaptations of Charles Dickens’s story A Christmas Carol (1843): Mickey’s Christmas Carol (1983), The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992) and A Christmas Carol (2009). When multiple incarnations of the one script are produced, the initial investment on a script is spread across the titles, thus lowering the average cost of each version. While studios often remake their filmic back catalogue, this also tran­ spires with television. In communications theorist Alex Bevan’s discus­ sion of film adaptations of television shows, she identifies that one of the financial drivers for studios is the opportunity to “capitalize on pre-existing

The economic remake

55

studio ownership of the original sitcom’s creative licenses.”103 In Chapter 3, I specifically discuss a range of rebooted television shows that get a second life when reimagined as movies. Reducing writer prominence By basing a new production on pre-existing material – be it canonical litera­ ture or (re)use of a property in a studio’s back catalogue – less prominence is placed on an individual scriptwriter. Taking writers out of the production equation has been of particular interest at times when writers have threat­ ened to or have actually gone on strike, something Jane Robbins addressed in The Independent in 2000: “Hollywood studio bosses, worried by the loom­ ing screenwriters’ strike, are rushing out a string of big-budget remakes of old movies and sequels in an effort to guarantee ratings success.”104 By re-filming old properties it matters substantially less whether writers make themselves available: the studio retains the ability to produce new-seeming material by simply tweaking old scripts. The Hollywood writers’ strike of 2007, for example, put this issue on the agenda with the supposed threatening of several projects. One at-risk project was The Taking of Pelham 123 (2009), a remake of the 1974 film (which was also made for television in 1998). That said, as Nikki Finke dis­ cusses in Deadline Hollywood, writers are certainly less important in remakes, thus diminishing their power and prominence: Supposedly, Sony’s remake of The Taking of Pelham One Two Three was in trouble because Brian Helgeland only finished 80 pages of his rewrite. But I’m told the studio still has the original finished David Koepp script which, after all, was a good enough draft for the studio to greenlight the pic in the first place.105 Use of pre-existing scripts also points to cost savings as related to efficiency. In Finke’s comments about the 2007 writers’ strike, she points to delays in production but flags that remakes are often less likely to be impacted by such events given that the old script remains available. This link between remakes and efficiency provides another reason that remakes can be cheaper: the process can be streamlined, leading to cost savings; something film theorist James Kendall discusses in his work on transnational remakes: The sudden resurgence of remaking activity, focused primarily on ‘plundering’ French cinema, has been ascribed to various interrelated factors: Hollywood’s quest for production efficiency, as taking over ready-made and proven material cuts production costs, time and risk.106 It should, of course, be noted that it is an overstatement to claim that writ­ ers aren’t involved in remakes entirely: as noted, they of course play impor­ tant roles in updating scripts; when this isn’t done, a remake often gets

56

The economic remake

criticized as anachronistic (Chapter 6). Electing to remake instead of con­ juring a wholly new project can help reduce development time as well as create efficiencies in other areas. In Chapter 3, for example, I discuss actors reprising roles in remakes: doing so creates an obvious efficiency regarding time taken to prepare for roles. In my earlier discussion of Tomorrowland, I noted some of the challenges created in marketing an original film from scratch. This alludes to one of the central reasons that studios are predisposed to remaking (as well as cre­ ating sequels and franchise expansions): because much of the hard work of selling the new film to a new audience has already been done.

The brand advantage In 2014, The Hollywood Reporter observed that it is now perfectly normal for studios to spend over $100 million in North America to market a block­ buster (and an additional $100 million if they want to market internation­ ally). Production costs are perceived as ever-increasing as studios attempt to fight for declining audiences.107 In sum, production costs aside, it is enor­ mously expensive to create awareness of a film. Writing for Reuters, Larry Gerbrandt examines the challenge – and expense – for studios to “[c]reate an internationally recognized brand name that lasts a lifetime, and do it in a couple of weeks with no second chances to course-correct,”108 and this introduces one of the key ways that remaking can reduce film costs: through exploiting an already recognized brand. The appeal of brands to consumers is explained by marketing theorists Walter McDowell and Alan Batten: In the best of marketing circumstances, people like brands because they save time, energy, and risk when purchasing a product or service. Once a preferred brand has been set up in memory, the purchase deci­ sion becomes automatic or habitual. In fact, a consumer will go out of his or her way to seek out this best of all brands.109 As I comment elsewhere, certain brands have the capacity to trigger specific emotions, such as patriotism or nostalgia, thus presenting distinct appeals to audiences.110 These ideas have relevance when a customer is faced with infinite choice at the supermarket, and, equally, it can help audiences navi­ gate the entertainment industry’s suite of offerings. In Lang’s discussion on the Tomorrowland flop, for example, he briefly mentions branding, flag­ ging that the success of the animation Inside Out (2015) was a very rare example of an “original” film doing well at the box office: “But it has the Pixar name behind it, and with it a Teflon brand that carries the universal appeal usually reserved for top-shelf film franchises.”111 While Tomorrowland was a Disney production, it didn’t have the opportunity to benefit from an established link to other Disney titles; instead, it could only offer a vague

The economic remake

57

reference to the theme park which proved to be an inadequate hook for audiences. While there exist many differences between branding in the context of breakfast cereal and cinema, nonetheless, as Lang flags, certain brands – Pixar, Disney, Marvel – have the ability to signal to audiences that their offerings guarantee the viewer a certain kind of experience: that spending their dollars on a film from a familiar brand is a less risky strategy than chancing a movie that they have neither prior experience with nor positive attachment to. The aforementioned director, Roger Donaldson, makes this point in his exploration of the proliferation of remakes: It’s like you go to the supermarket and you’re going to buy some soap powder. You’re going to be more interested in soap powder that you’ve got familiarity with than the one you’ve never heard of before. It’s a little bit like that when you’re talking about mass marketing a movie.112 While the dominance of brands like Pixar, Disney or Marvel help to explain the popularity of certain films – notably, sequels and franchise expansions – such ideas also have relevance to remakes whereby a “brand” of sorts is cre­ ated, with the earlier film(s) functioning as a familiar, reliable trademark of sorts, particularly so for risk-averse customers who would rather pay to see a film they are confident that they will enjoy rather than chancing something unfamiliar; something Brogan Morris discusses in Refinery29: Wonder why there are so many remakes, reboots, re-imaginings and re­ quels around at the moment? It’s not because the industry has run out of ideas. Rather, it’s because of a prevailing notion at the studios that a movie which combines nostalgia with brand recognition will more often than not see greater box office returns than any other kind of picture. Though the hard numbers show it doesn’t necessarily draw larger audiences, Hollywood nonetheless believes in this concept of ‘preawareness.’113 Such remakes trade on the goodwill that audiences have for the earlier film(s) and thus reproductions benefit from what Richard Carter in the New York Amsterdam News terms “the rub-off value.”114 A key area where brand familiarity plays a central role is film adaptations of television shows (discussed further in Chapter 3). In Bevan’s discussion of Baby Boomer sitcoms that have been reimagined as feature films – for example Leave it to Beaver (1957–1963) adapted for cinema in 1997 – she notes that there is an existing audience familiar with the story that can be banked on as likely consumers for a transmedia reimagining: “they capi­ talize on pre-existing studio ownership of the original sitcom’s creative licenses.”115

58

The economic remake

While remakes are obviously the focus of this book – and thus a preced­ ing film or television show serves to provide preawareness – Morris’s ideas also explain films based on video games, board games, theme parks and rides, because they each utilize the familiarity of a brand to help with mar­ keting: film theorist Laura Mee spotlights this, noting that the appeal for studios in remaking is that such titles “are easy to promote through name recognition and broader audience familiarity.”116 Remaking makes the job of selling a film easier, and thus marketing costs are reduced. Outside of saving money, studios can try to make vast sums of it by recre­ ating the success of the earlier production.

Recapturing lightning in a bottle Film theorist Doris Milberg identifies that one of the key drivers behind remake production is: “Let’s try it again, maybe lightning will strike twice.”117 In Chapter 1 I posited that, since the late 1970s, Hollywood has been fix­ ated on trying to repeat the success of Jaws (1975) and Star Wars (1977). While achieving that level of success is near impossible in today’s more dif­ fuse media market, studios nonetheless use remakes – particularly so the blockbuster remakes discussed in Chapter 1 – is an attempt to recapture the interest that had once been held by the predecessor title. Doing so is nothing new: in his work on director Cecil B. DeMille, film theorist Robert Birchard notes that it was inevitable that DeMille would remake his 1923 film The Ten Commandments in 1956; the earlier film after all was, “one of the biggest box-office hits of the silent era. ”118 Recapturing past glory has long been a mission for studios. While the quest to recreate the success of an earlier film is often a key motive, repeating success is actually almost impossible. Partly this is because the era of Jaws and Star Wars – i.e., the pre-video era – is over, and cinema now competes with a more diverse media marketplace dominated by cable and streaming services. Partly this is because of the near impossibility of ever recreating each of the elements that contributed to a predecessor’s success. In his New York Times review of Dirty Dancing (2017) for example – the made-for-TV remake of the 1987 film – Neil Genzlinger addresses why duplicating the surprise success of the source material was impossible three decades later: The Dirty Dancing phenomenon was never really about the story – or the music – or even the dancing. It was about the way those things came together at a particular moment in time for a particular audience in a gritty movie featuring two engaging stars. That kind of lightning in a bot­ tle can’t be recreated, a point ABC takes a wearying three hours to make.119 Several other commentators reference the impossibility of repeating suc­ cess. In their Variety article on remakes for example, Michael Williams and Christian Mork observe simply that “you lose the magic the second time

The economic remake

59

around.”120 Film critic Roger Ebert also alludes to this in his discussion of the 1998 Psycho remake: “The movie is an invaluable experiment in the theory of cinema, because it demonstrates that a shot-by-shot remake is pointless; genius apparently resides between the shots, or in a chemistry that cannot be timed or counted.”121 Saxon Bullock also addresses this in his work on remakes: [A]ssembling a movie cast is difficult enough under normal circumstances – for example, only a small twist of fate prevented first choice Ronald Reagan from playing Rick in Casablanca [1942] – but try­ ing to correctly cast an already famous role can be like trying to bottle lightning.122 In her review of Ghostbusters (2016), Mary Ford also alludes to the kismet of successful predecessors that simply can’t be manufactured in a remake: It’s easy enough to pepper the plot with callbacks and to modernize the music and special effects. What’s harder to repeat is the freewheeling Ghostbusters [1984] spirit, and that’s where the new version falls short.123 It is for this reason that bigger and better remakes (Chapter 1) as well as slicker Americanized remakes (Chapter 4) are frequently unsuccessful: on many occasions, the fortune of the predecessor was predicated on a range of factors ranging from the production being beautiful, small and quaint, with low expectations (and often a shorter runtime, as discussed in Chapter 5), that spoke to a specific audience at a specific point in history, with a perfect cast and, notably, that benefited from an audience that was ready at that exact moment to embrace the film: as film theorist Thomas Leitch observes, “the impossible task of all remakes: to recreate the unique context of their predecessors.”124 Added to this, for a large part of the intended audience for a reproduction, familiarity exists with the earlier film – the audience has likely already seen it – and thus the remake can’t ever be perceived as new, nor consumed in the same way that the predecessor was but, rather, exists in the shadow of both the earlier film and the baggage of reproduction. In part, studios produce remakes because they want to coerce people who enjoyed the earlier film to return to the cinema to see the new incarna­ tion. More so, studios want to grow an audience – to expand ratings and the box office – as explored in the next section.

Audience expansion The audience for remakes is multifaceted. As alluded to in Bevan’s work, for some remakes – such as a film adaptation of a television series – there is a built-in audience of people with fond memories of the series and who are potentially curious about a reimagining and the nostalgic possibilities proffered (Chapter 3) and perhaps are even primed to partake of the new

60

The economic remake

vs. old comparison game. There is also the capacity for a remake to carve out a new audience: on Mee’s list of explanations for remaking, for exam­ ple, she identifies that “they can bring a new audience to an existing prop­ erty.”125 This latter idea – of remaking to draw in new viewers – is explored in this section. While the creative means to do this – for example, through genre-change or through courting a different classification – are explored in Chapter 5, in this section I focus more broadly on the principles of a new production reaching new audiences. In Brian D. Johnson’s Maclean’s discussion on remakes, he asks the pro­ verbial “why bother” question and spotlights the most obvious reason being to increase the audience: Which begs the question – if the original was such a bloody master­ piece, why try to improve on it? The most common reason cited: we’re making it for a new generation that never saw the original.126 Targeting an audience who is too young to have seen the earlier version is something pointed to by commentators and those involved in film produc­ tion. In discussing the aforementioned Psycho remake, for example, film theorist Mario Falsetto observes: In remaking Hitchcock’s film, Van Sant is asking how we make cultural artefacts from the past relevant to new generations of moviegoers unfa­ miliar with the original, and undoubtedly used to a different kind of cinema. His remake was not primarily designed for Hitchcock’s many fans or cinephiles. . . . Rather, he was aiming at the audience who was unaware of the original, which probably constitutes a majority of the contemporary movie-going audience at this point in time.127 Tom Sherak, former distribution head at Twentieth Century Fox, made a sim­ ilar point arguing that the rationale behind remaking is that “there’s already a solid story there that a whole new generation will buy into if it’s done correctly.”128 Bob Flynn in The Guardian is a little more cynical, suggesting: Even if studio executives have original ideas bursting from their script mountains, they love to fall back on a tried and tested product. And, assuming that the mall rats and the multiplexers have little knowledge of the original, they can do well out of it.129 Part of the imagined and expanded audience for a remake, therefore, is young people to whom the remake will likely be construed as a new film, something Hutcheon explains: If we do not know that what we are experiencing actually is an adapta­ tion or if we are not familiar with the particular work it adapts, we sim­ ply experience the adaptation as we would any other work.130

The economic remake

61

Targeting young people, though, is not just a matter of showing them mate­ rial they haven’t seen before: if it were as simple as this, studios would simply rerelease old content rather than go to the expense of remaking it. Falsetto flags that today’s moviegoers are “used to a different kind of cinema,” and Quinn expands on this as a driver for the slew of Disney live-action remakes targeting young people who have certain expectations of modern offerings: They may be venerable and in their day were revolutionary, but many of Disney’s most valuable animated properties are now more than 50 years old. No matter how many times you remaster and re-release them, they look and sound hopelessly dated – especially to today’s kids, who just aren’t that interested in hand-drawn animation.131 Disney’s live-action remakes thus do double-duty by targeting the nostalgia crowd who enjoyed the first film and are keen to experience it again – and see it done anew – as well as young people for whom Disney’s reimagined contents are designed to dazzle for the first time. Remakes present old sto­ ries to new audiences using new technology (Chapter 1) and utilize fast editing and contemporary music and special effects (Chapter 6) to give them new appeals. Reigniting an ancillary market around the reproduction is another key means for studios to make money from remakes, as discussed in the next section.

Franchise expansion While much has been written about the lucrativeness of franchises in film­ making132 – notably so in the realm of the superhero film133 – this idea is also relevant to remaking in that such productions are often intended to reignite such a franchise, thus creating future opportunities for revenueraising: as Johnson writes in Maclean’s, “some remakes are just attempts to reboot a franchise, resetting it to zero for a new round of sequels.”134 By remaking a film like Wonder Woman, Superman or Batman for example, the hope is not solely for the remake itself to succeed – although that is obvi­ ously desirable – but to also profit from the inevitable sequels. Following the enormous success of Wonder Woman (2017) for example – based on a story first filmed for television in 1974 – it is no surprise that a sequel was rapidly commissioned.135 Certain films are also disproportionately selected for reproduction pri­ marily because of the possibilities they ignite for merchandising. In Ver­ evis’s discussion of King Kong (1976) for example – the remake of the 1933 film – he notes the centrality of merchandizing in the reproduction: [I]n the mid-1970s, King Kong was seen as a ‘natural’ for remaking, not only because of the success of the original, its pioneering special effects and cult status, but for the opportunities it provided for promotional

62

The economic remake tie-ins, from Jim Beam King Kong cocktails to 7–11 store slurpy drinks in special Kong cups.136

Communications scholars Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin also discuss this idea as related to the broader goals of tie-ins and branding: The goal is to have the child watching a Batman video while wearing a Batman cape, eating a fast-food meal with a Batman promotional wrap­ per, and playing with a Batman toy. The goal is literally to engage all of the child’s senses.137 Undoubtedly such merchandizing is part of the motivation for Disney to remake its animation back catalogue – Disney being famous for their wellhoned merchandizing machine138 – but something relevant for other repro­ ductions too. In several instances, films of television series are made with the intention of rebooting a series, similarly, pilot movies are sometimes produced with the hope that sufficient interest will be ignited to service the commissioning of a full series. Discussed earlier was the lucrativeness of reimagining a studio’s back cat­ alogue. Adding to such a catalogue is another explanation for reproduction as explored in the next section.

Catalogue expansion Discussed earlier was the propensity for Hollywood to milk several produc­ tions out of one story or screenplay. The practice centers on studios fur­ thering their initial return on investment, but is also designed to expand a catalogue by creating additional properties that they can profit off through distribution, syndication and future redevelopment, something Park explores: [F]rom Hollywood’s perspective, the remake is one of the most effi­ cient tools for expanding their properties. Hollywood’s remake pro­ cess is fundamentally motivated by copyright ownership. The desire to capitalize on a film’s proven popularity (i.e., profitability) is merely a secondary concern.139 In a 1975 New York Times article, Robert Brustein suggests that the prolifera­ tion of remakes centers on keeping up with incessant audience demand for content: “Apparently, America’s appetite for entertainment is becoming simply insatiable, and, as a result, is far outstripping the industry’s capac­ ity to generate new products.”140 In Milberg’s 1990 book on remakes, she makes a similar point, observing: “As television and its offspring, cable television, became part and parcel of everyday living, more and more material [is] needed to satisfy the millions who daily demanded instant

The economic remake

63

entertainment.”141 While populating broadcast television and then cable television has been important for over half a century, more recently, the necessity to create content has become even more pronounced with studios having to populate all of their platforms. Film critic A.A. Dowd alludes to this in his scathing review of the horror film Cabin Fever (2016) – the remake of the 2002 film – asking “Who, exactly, is the new Cabin Fever for? The easy answer is that it’s for on-demand browsers who don’t recognize the title and want a quick gore fix.”142 Verevis identifies the interdependence of film and television with each providing source material for the other.143 In the context of broadcast televi­ sion, cinema has long provided source material, as evidenced by the long list of series-long adaptations of films, for example: • The romance Casablanca (1942) reimagined as a television series in 1955. Another series was made in 1983. • The musical Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (1954) reimagined as a drama series (1982–1983). • The war-comedy Operation Petticoat (1959) reimagined as a sitcom (1977–1979). • The thriller Psycho (1960/1998) reimagined for television as Bates Motel (2013–2017). • The war-comedy M*A*S*H* (1970) reimagined as a sitcom (1972–1983). • The comedy-fantasy Teen Wolf (1985) reimagined as a drama series (2011–2017). • The comedy Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (1986) reimagined as the sitcom Fer­ ris Bueller (1990–1991). • The aforementioned Dirty Dancing reimagined as a television series (1988–1989). • The teen-comedy Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure (1989) reimagined as the animated series Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventures (1990–1991). • The comedy Working Girl (1988) reimagined as a sitcom (1990). • The comedy Uncle Buck (1989) reimagined twice as a sitcom (1990– 1991; 2016). • The comedy Parenthood (1989) reimagined as a drama series (2010–2015). • The teen romcom 10 Things I Hate About You (1999) reimagined as a series (2009–2010). • The action-comedy Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1992) reimagined as a series (1996–2003). • The thriller Fargo (1996) reimagined as a series (2014–). • The Disney animation The Emperor’s New Groove (2000) reimagined as the series The Emperor’s New School (2006–2008). • The crime-drama Training Day (2001) reimagined as a series (2017). • The comedy My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002), reimagined as the series My Big Fat Greek Life (2003).

64

The economic remake

• The British romcom Four Weddings and a Funeral (2004) reimagined as a series (2019–). One on hand these transmedia examples point to cinema often being the inspiration for television content, something also evidenced in the range of cinema releases remade as made-for-television films: mentioned already in this chapter was the television remake of Steel Magnolias; similarly, the afore­ mentioned It’s a Wonderful Life was remade for television as It Happened One Christmas (1977). In fact, the remaking of cinema releases as television mov­ ies happens widely, some examples include: Hobson’s Choice (1931/1983), Laura (1944/1968), A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (1945/1974), Johnny Belinda (1958/1958/1961/1967/1982), A Letter to Three Wives (1949/1985), Harvey (1950/1972/1996), A Street Car Named Desire (1951/1984/1995), 12 Angry Men (1957/1997), Inherit the Wind (1960/1965/1988), A Raisin in the Sun (1961/2008) and Beaches (1988/2017). While often heavily critiqued144 – not only are these made-for-television productions remakes, but they com­ pound their lowly status by being examples of the much-maligned medium of the television movie – such films, however, make a story accessible to people in their own homes, thus increasing reach. As noted, network television, cable television and streaming services require evermore content to populate their platforms. In the context of streaming services, its notable that in several examples “original” content is in fact based on pre-existing screen material, and thus populating platforms is a practice inextricably linked to reproduction: • Netflix’s political drama House of Cards (2013–2018) is a remake of the British series (1990). • Amazon Studios’s animated series Thunderbirds Are Go (2015–) is a remake of Thunderbirds (1965–1966). • Netflix’s sitcoms Wet Hot American Summer: First Day of Camp (2015) and Wet Hot American Summer: Ten Years Later (2017) are adaptations of the film Wet Hot American Summer (2001). • Netflix’s drama Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life (2016) is a reboot of the Gilmore Girls series (2000–2007). • Netflix’s sitcom Fuller House (2016–) is a reboot of Full House (1987–1995). • Netflix’s sitcom One Day at a Time (2017–) is remake of the 1975–1984 series. • Netflix’s sitcom She’s Gotta Have It (2017–) is a television series reimag­ ining of the 1986 film. • Netflix’s sitcom Dear White People (2017–) is a series adaptation of the 2014 film. • Hulu’s drama The Handmaid’s Tale (2017–) is based on Margaret Atwood’s novel (1985), filmed previously in 1990.

The economic remake

65

• CBS All Access’s legal-drama The Good Fight (2017–) is a spinoff series of The Good Wife (2009–2016). • Amazon Studios’s animation The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle (2018–2019) is a remake of The Bullwinkle Show (1961–1963). • Amazon Studios’s mini-series Ordeal by Innocence (2018) is based on material first filmed in 1984. • Amazon Studios’s Suspiria (2018) is a remake of the 1977 horror film. • Amazon Studios’s mystery series Agatha Christie’s The ABC Murders (2018) is an adaptation of material first filmed as The Alphabet Murders in 1965. • Amazon Studios’s period-drama mini-series Picnic at Hanging Rock (2018) is based on the Joan Lindsey novel (1967) first filmed in 1975. • Netflix’s sci-fi series Lost in Space (2018–) is a remake of the 1965–1968 series. • Netflix’s horror series The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina (2018–) is a reimagining of the sitcom Sabrina, the Teenage Witch (1996–2003). • CBS All Access’s sci-fi series The Twilight Zone (2019–) is a remake of the 1959–1964 series. • Hulu’s mystery series Veronica Mars (2019–) is a reboot of the 2004– 2007 series. • Hulu’s aforementioned romcom series Four Weddings and a Funeral (2019–) is an adaptation of the 1994 film. • Hulu’s action-drama Catch 22 (2019–), is an adaptation of material pre­ viously filmed in 1970. • Disney Plus’s Lady and the Tramp (2019) is a reimagining of the 1955 animation. Disney Plus also announced, during the writing of this book, the produc­ tion of a reboot of the youth series Lizzie McGuire (2001–2004).145 In the context of series-long adaptations, an opportunity is provided to expand the originary material far beyond the two hours of content that a film-length remake provides, hence why film theorists like Leitch are reluc­ tant to use “remake” to describe television,146 and as observed by media theorist James Martens, “Certainly remade television shows and films are quite unlike the originals that had inspired them.”147 As I discuss elsewhere, in adapting a movie into a series, greater scope is created for characteriza­ tion and storyline development.148 The US House of Cards mentioned earlier, as well as the US sitcom The Office (2005–2013) – a remake of the British series (2001–2003) – are two examples whereby the small number of epi­ sodes from the originary series inspired dozens of episodes in the remake, featuring many more characters and storylines. Such a technique is also deployed in literary adaptations. In his New York Times article, for example, John O’Connor spotlights the television version of the British mini-series David Copperfield (1986) – based on the Charles Dickens book, first adapted

66

The economic remake

for the screen in 1911 – as an example of this, noting that: “this mini-series is far more faithful to the letter of the novel. It has the time to dawdle. The result is certainly worth watching and, often enough, savoring.”149 In such an example, television allows for a more comprehensive adaptation of the source material, potentially becoming a more “definitive” version of a story than could be accomplished by a two-hour film. While cinema often provides source material for television, television is also frequently the inspiration for movies, as explored in Chapter 3. Another central source for inspiration is international content. A wide world of new material Of the many criticisms hounding remakes, an enduring one is that they are testimony to the dearth of ideas, something Knöppler discusses in his work on horror: Film critics generally do not hold the practice [of remaking] in high regard, instead criticizing it as a result of Hollywood’s commercial rather than artistic interest and as evidence of a terminal lack of ideas.150 Klein and Palmer present a similar case, observing: “There is a generalized sense that commercial cinema is losing its ability to come up with new ideas and, in its drive for profits, is finally scraping the bottom of the story prop­ erty barrel.”151 The search for ever more new material has motivated Hollywood to look to the films of other nations for inspiration, something Forrest and Koos discuss: Reviewers from both sides of the Atlantic cried out in disgust against the practice, denouncing Hollywood’s rapaciousness, its plundering of readymade foreign products in the bankruptcy of its own creative reserves.152 Park makes the same point, noting “[a]s Hollywood runs increasingly dry of original ideas, it is little surprise that foreign remakes are becoming more profitable and, thus, more prevalent in the industry.”153 Film theorist Bliss Cua Lim discusses the same cross-cultural borrowing, noting “Hollywood’s horror industry is running scared. The formula and franchises have been squeezed dry. And now Hollywood is turning to Asia to restock the cup­ board.”154 As explored in Chapter 4, US remakes of international content have occurred since the beginning of the industry. While remaking international content helps to expand an American studio’s catalogue, it also helps to create a situation where the US can then sell their remade product around the world – as Park notes, “The remake is an efficient, transformative instrument with which the importer becomes the exporter.”155

The economic remake

67

While studios hope that the American film has a global reach and thus a lucrative box office, by remaking a film rather than simply acquiring a foreign title to distribute, US producers maximize their means of profit. This is something that also has applicability to television, as Brian Moylan explores in The Guardian as related to the British crime-drama Broadchurch (2013–2017) and its US remake Gracepoint (2014): Along with reaching untapped audiences, Fox’s remake means they have more control over the production and, if it’s a hit, sell Gracepoint internationally and on streaming services for a much larger profit than would come from leasing Broadchurch and selling ads.156 US studios want to profit from selling shows into syndication in perpetuity (both locally and also internationally), rather than having to “lease” the international content themselves in order to screen it on their platforms. By owning the copyright, the American studio holds the means of profiting from the initial box office, as well as all future rights when the material is rebroadcast or, for example, sold onto a streaming service. This generates revenue from local audiences and also from global distribution and inter­ national licensing. As noted earlier, an accusation often levelled at remakes is that they usurp their predecessor and render it insignificant. The counter argument – and one that introduces another way that studios can profit from a remake – is that through the reproduction interest in the source material is actu­ ally reinvigorated. (This, of course, is most desirable if the studio owns the predecessor.)

Reigniting interest in the earlier film In Leitch’s discussion of the Psycho remake, he speculates on “Universal’s scheme to release the film in 1998 as a loss leader that would rekindle interest in their most prestigious property just in time for the centennial rerelease of Hitchcock’s backlist on DVD.”157 While there were, as already discussed in this chapter (and expanded on in Chapter 5), a range of creative reasons why Van Sant chose to remake Psycho, as Leitch high­ lights, in doing so Universal likely also hoped to reignite interest in their back catalogue of Hitchcock titles. Marketing theorist Finola Kerrigan expands on this idea in her discussion of the positive consequences of reproduction: Consumption of one film may lead a consumer to seek out other films by a particular director or writer, to find out more about the composer of the soundtrack or artists featured on the soundtrack. If a film is a remake, they may be tempted to seek out the original.158

68

The economic remake

Earlier I discussed It’s a Wonderful Life and The Thing and how the passing of time and their reproduction elevated the status of both films. As relevant to this discussion remaking can also help rekindle memories of the source material for viewers, if not also motivate them to actually seek such films out again, or to do so for the first time. A remake – and the discourse around it – can thus alert audiences to an earlier film, in turn countering the accusa­ tion that a remake usurps its predecessor. James Francis Jr. makes this point in his discussion of horror remakes, noting, “Remakes bring back memories of the original productions into a contemporary social consciousness.”159 Knöppler, also discussing horror, makes a similar point: While the previous film can certainly fall into obscurity once a new ver­ sion appears, a remake is just as likely to achieve the opposite, as the mere existence of a remake confirms the value and canonicity of its predecessor.160 Stenport and Traylor, in their work on remakes, assert a similar case: [R]emakes function as preservative, or archival, markers by provid­ ing a direct link to previous domain examples. Remakes thereby serve the functions of both cultural memorialization and information preservation.161 While obtaining data on increased interest in originary material following reproduction is difficult in a world where the means to view such material – from DVDs to streaming and digital downloads – are numerous and where ratings data is hard to procure, nonetheless historically there have certainly been observations of spikes in interest in source material following release of a new production. Such a surge has been noted in the context of originary literature162 and also predecessor films. Following remakes of the romcom Father of the Bride (1950/1991) and the thriller Cape Fear (1962/1991), for example, surges in hiring and purchases of the first films were reported.163 Following the release of Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991), John Hartl in the Austin-American Statesman similarly discusses the impact that the new film had on creating afterlives for earlier incarnations of the story: Sales of videocassettes of the 1938 Errol Flynn Adventures of Robin Hood are up. Disney is reissuing its indifferently animated 1973 cartoon ver­ sion on tape July 12 (it has not been available since early 1987). On June 17, the 1950s British television series [The Adventures of Robin Hood (1955–1960)], starring Richard Greene and Leo McKern, is making its tape debut. . . . Beginning July 25, CBS/Fox Video will release six feature-length British Robin Hood movies produced between 1985 and 1991: Maid Marian and Her Merry Men: How the Band Got Together and Maid Marian and Her Merry Men: The Miracle of St. Charlene (both

The economic remake

69

produced for the BBC); and Robin Hood and the Sorcerer, Robin Hood: Time of the Wolf, Robin Hood: The Swords of Wayland and Robin Hood: Herne’s Son (all produced by Goldcrest Films).164 Akin to encouraging critical reevaluation of a predecessor, a remake can also encourage other kinds of interest in the source material, for example scholarly re-examination. While this can lead to canonization as discussed earlier, more broadly it can involve the creation of a new discourse around the predecessor, potentially unearthing subtext and zeitgeist markers only visible with the passing of time. In Loock’s discussion of Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) and its remakes, she identifies that “the remakes seem to have spawned academic discussions and re-readings of the 1956 movie.”165 Francis, in his discussion on Psycho (1998), similarly spotlights that “the original was suddenly brought back into the limelight to be compared to the newer version’s alterations and production considerations.”166 Certainly the 2018 A Star is Born led to both popular167 and scholarly discussions of the new film and its predecessors;168 the live-action Disney adaptations have generated similar re-examinations of the older titles. As discussed throughout this chapter, there are a range of ways that remakes can make money. Such films, however, aren’t risk free. In the final section of this chapter I examine some of the economic risks of remaking.

The risks of remaking Discussed earlier in this chapter was the reality that most films don’t make money. With this in mind, the production of any film or television show is a risky endeavor and is likely to lead to financial loss. While remaking is a strategy that helps to reduce the likelihood of a loss, nonetheless it obviously doesn’t entirely eliminate the risk. In this section I present three key risks of remaking, including the perception that remakes are a waste of money, audience boredom and audiences feeling insulted by the existence of a reproduction. The perceived waste of money In 2016, actor and director Robert Redford commented on his personal aversion to remakes: I think the idea of doing a sequel or a remake is a waste of time, a waste of money and a waste of energy. There are too many new stories to tell to waste your time and money on a story already told.169 While Redford would, later that same year, appear in Pete’s Dragon (2016) – the live-action remake of the 1977 film – his perception that there is some­ thing wasteful about remaking is echoed in other discussions. Actor Bruce

70

The economic remake

Campbell, for example, was asked about his thoughts on the 1998 Psycho remake and branded it as “an absurd waste of celluloid.”170 Michael Deeley, who produced The Italian Job (1969), discussed the 2003 remake and simi­ larly claimed, “It seems like a complete waste of money to me.”171 As with much of the negative commentary around remakes, most critics don’t expand on what they mean by a slur like “waste of money” – given that filmmaking isn’t a life-sustaining essential, arguably all filmmaking is a waste of money – although Redford’s comment certainly nods to the idea of opportunity cost and the fact that in electing to pour resources into a remake another film isn’t being made: this might mean the side-lining of films made by or about marginalized and under-represented people for example. Another interpretation of this idea is the notion of such films being wasteful. Elsewhere I discuss remakes often described as unneces­ sary172: the undercurrent being that there is, apparently, a kind of film that is deemed necessary. Susan Dunne, in her discussion of the Psycho remake, addresses and also counters this notion of waste: Maybe the fuss about movie remakes arises from a purely financial rationale, owing to the comparatively high, and highly publicized, cost of moviemaking compared with other art forms. This can create an impression of profligacy. But as long as those films draw a crowd and make a profit, the efforts can’t, from a business standpoint, be consid­ ered a waste of money or effort.173 While to date wastefulness is an accusation most commonly made by film critics and filmmaking personnel, nonetheless, the production of too many remakes – notably, too many remakes made too close together (Chapter 3) – potentially creates a disincentive for audiences to pay for a film that they feel they’ve already recently seen. While, to date, remakes still do strong business compared to other kinds of films, the notion of a saturation point and the possibility of reaching “peak remake” is worth considering. In Jazmin Kopotsha’s Refinery29 review of the BBC’s mini-series Les Misérables (2018) – notably when the big budget Universal Pictures version was only released in 2012 – she questions this notion of “peak remake”: When is it appropriate to announce that we just might’ve reached peak remake? It’s becoming increasingly difficult to name famous narratives that haven’t been reworked in the last few of years, and the novelty of nostalgia is starting to wear thin.174 Abigail Chandler suggests something similar in her 2016 Metro article about the then-forthcoming Ocean’s 8: Sandra Bullock, Cate Blanchett and Rihanna (!) are all lined up to star in Ocean’s 8, the remake of Clooney/Pitt/Damon vehicle Ocean’s Eleven

The economic remake

71

[2001], which itself was a remake of a Sinatra/Martin/Davis Jnr vehicle [1960]. We may have reached peak remake, here.175 In his criticism of Dumbo (2019) – Disney’s live-action remake of the 1941 animation – Chris Evangelista, while not using the term peak remake, none­ theless posits the same idea: [Tim] Burton has had big success with Disney live-action in the past, having helmed Alice in Wonderland [2010]. But that was at a time when these remakes felt fresh. Now, they’re becoming old hat. Are audiences getting burned out? Or is Dumbo just not a big enough property to inspire as much excitement? Time will tell.176 Similarly, while the term “peak remake” again wasn’t used, the trailer for The Art of Racing in the Rain (2019) that aired on US television in the summer of 2019 also hinted at this idea, with the voiceover touting, “in a summer of sequels and remakes this one is a purebred original.” The film – itself an adaptation of a novel – was trying to draw contrast with the slew of film remakes released that summer (discussed further in the Conclusion). While to date such criticisms are, again, still more commonly made by critics than audiences – and audiences are seemingly still patronizing these films even if complaining about them (in what Steven Zeitchik in The Wash­ ington Post calls the “grumble gap”)177 – it is worth speculating that the per­ ception of remakes being, among other things, wasteful may eventually see a tipping point related to audience reception and the aforementioned dimin­ ishing returns being felt more acutely – something Ann Hornaday posits in the Daily Herald: “we’ve reached a point where doubling down – on nostal­ gia, formula and bigness for its own sake – can only result in diminishing returns.”178 From an exclusively economic perspective, a film that loses money is, arguably, a waste of resources. It is, of course, worth noting – and as related to the earlier discussion about whether remakes are culturally generative – is the notion that even if a remake loses money it can still provide other ben­ efits; Mee explores this in the context of horror, noting that such remakes “can and do provide creative and commercial opportunities that not only sustain genre production, but actively contribute to its evolution.”179 While this is not necessarily a balm for profit-oriented US studios, nonetheless, for filmmaking in smaller or growing industries, any production – regardless of the box office – is culturally generative and an investment in industry personnel. Going to the cinema or watching television is a sensory experience. It is expected that for screen media to be successful it must stimulate viewers’ senses. A risk for remakes is such films failing to keep audiences interested in material they potentially have too much familiarity with.

72

The economic remake

The bored audience In marketing theorists Björn Bohnenkamp and colleagues’s work on remakes, the authors spotlight the limited sensory appeals of remakes: [R]emakes offer familiarity but are generally limited in their sensation value, a major motivational driver of movie attendance. This lack exists because remakes do not present the continuation of a known story, as sequels do, or add specific new sensory experiences to a known book, as adaptations do. Remakes, by definition, tell a story again that has been told before, in the same modality in which it has been told before.180 While – as discussed in Chapter 3 – often the appeal of remakes is their nostalgia value, nonetheless, invariably such films are expected to bring something new to the table: discussed in Chapter 1, for example, is the expectation that a remake be bigger and better; Disney live-action remakes are obvious examples. One way that a remake can justify its existence is by offering audiences a new sensory experience through the remake – presenting it, perhaps, in live-action or 3D. Not doing this and producing a remake that’s too similar to the source material – notably so if an insuf­ ficient amount of time has passed between remakes, as occurred in the aforementioned Les Misérables, as well as in the range of short-turnaround remakes discussed in Chapter 3 – means there hasn’t been enough time for audiences to feel nostalgic about a title yet, and thus it may get rejected. A final risk in remaking explored in this chapter is the idea that they will be perceived as insulting to a cynical audience who suspects that Hollywood is pandering to them. While admittedly, with audiences continuing to con­ sume remakes arguably we are all just getting what we “deserve,”181 none­ theless, certainly among critics, the conveyor belt of remakes as something insulting has been widely observed. The insulted viewer Part of the extensive negative rhetoric hounding remakes centers on critics feeling insulted by their existence. In Paddy Shennan’s Liverpool Echo review of the British drama series Minder (2009) – the remake of the 1979–1994 series – he asks, “Why do they do it? Why do they insult us like this?”182 In Carter’s article on remakes, he argues that “As a lifelong moviegoer and devotee of what once was called the silver screen, I find most of this warmed-over stuff tiresome and insulting to my intelligence.”183 The same criticism is identifiable in a range of reviews: • The made-for-TV thriller Suspicion (1988), the remake of Hitchcock’s 1941 film, as “insulting.”184 • The melodrama Stella (1990), the remake of Stella Dallas (1925/1937), as “insulting and stereotyped beyond measure.”185

The economic remake

73

• The adventure-comedy Major Payne (1995) as an “insulting remake” of The Private War of Major Benson (1955).186 • The thriller Psycho (1998) as “the worst example of how badly wrong and insulting a remake can be.”187 • The US horror film The Wicker Man (2006) as an “insultingly redundant remake” of the 1973 British film.188 • The comedy The Upside (2017) – the US remake of the French film Intouchables (The Untouchables) (2011) – as “insulting, even demeaning.”189 While the “insulting” claim is frequently made, it doesn’t go unchallenged. In her TimesUnion article on remakes, Amy Biancolli addresses comments made by actress Tippi Hedren who claimed that a remake of Hitchcock’s The Birds (1963) would be “insulting.” Biancolli responds by challenging: “But insulting to whom? Hitch? He might remake it himself, if he were alive.”190 Hitchcock, of course, did make remakes himself, directing The Manxman (1926), which was a remake of a 1916 film and Number 17 (1932) a remake of a 1920 film. Hitchcock remade one of his own films, making The Man Who Knew Too Much in 1934 and then again in 1956, and also filmed the same story in two simultaneous productions: as Murder! (1930) and as the German-language production Mary (1931). While it is typical that a word like insulting isn’t explained by the critics who use it, it is nonetheless worth examining what might be meant. Most obviously – and in line with the themes of this chapter – is audiences feeling insulted by the assumed cash-grab and opportunism exhibited by the new production. In Richard Newby’s Hollywood Reporter article on the 2019 Lion King, for example, he acknowledges that while in one camp are audiences who are excited about the nostalgic opportunities proffered by the remake, populating the other camp are “those incensed by Disney’s alleged cashgrab tactics.”191 Here, the idea is fans insulted by a studio’s assumption that they’ll simply open their wallets for anything put before them. While remakes remain relatively popular – hence why studios keep pro­ ducing them – to assume that this will always be the case is problematic. As noted throughout this book, the rhetoric around remakes is that audiences are tired of them. Mee points to the idea of audiences complaining “of an industry oversaturated with retold stories,”192 and in Thompson’s Atlantic article, he observes the decline in the cinema attendance of young people: Well, they’re not watching more pay-TV television. They’re not reading more newspapers. Their attention is pouring into mobile devices and apps, like Netflix and premium cable apps (where many Hollywood auteurs have decamped), YouTube, Facebook, and Snapchat.193 With platforms like Netflix able to take more risks with content194 – thus, arguably, produce more original media – it could be argued that, just as

74

The economic remake

studios have had to respond to challenges like television and the internet, film will need to compete in new ways, and “more of the same” may no longer be a sufficient enticement to future audiences. Insulted can also be about the notion of besmirching the memory of a predecessor – something Tippi Hedren was perhaps alluding to, as though a remake would be insulting to an auteur as esteemed as Alfred Hitchcock. It can also reference insult to on-screen talent. In an article announcing the adventure-drama Jumanji (1995) – a remake that eventually become Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) – Jenna Mullins writing for E! News criti­ cized the not-yet-produced film as unnecessary and insulting and as “in dan­ ger of tarnishing the onscreen legacy of one of the great comedians of our time.”195 For Mullins, such a remake besmirches the legacy of the earlier film – in the first Jumanji film, the heritage includes a cast starring Robin Williams – and is akin to personnel from earlier films criticizing remakes as destroying a legacy (Chapter 3). Such besmirching can be construed as grounded in the perception that an inferior actor is now occupying a role made great by an esteemed actor196 and in the process usurps the older production. A further thread of this besmirching idea is the notion that a predecessor somehow gets sullied by being associated with an “inferior” remake. Padraic Coffey alludes to this in his HeadStuff discussion of The Ring (2002), the US remake of the Japanese horror film Ringu (The Ring) (1998), arguing that the reproduction “is symptomatic of a larger problem in Hollywood; the propensity to rehash foreign-language staples with infe­ rior remakes which in turn overshadow – or at least taint by association – their source material.”197 Such an argument posits that there is something sullying about a predecessor’s name being evoked in a discussion of a lack­ luster remake; that the coupling of the two films diminishes a predecessor’s legacy and cultural value (something explored in Chapter 3). Before concluding, it’s worthwhile spotlighting the “insult” accusation as related to remakes that have been interpreted as failed attempts at being “woke.” Elsewhere I have discussed the recent trend of sex-swap remakes, which many critics have dubbed as insulting.198 In Morris’s Refinery29 explo­ ration of the sex-swapped Ghostbusters and Ocean’s 8, he argues that such films are insulting on the grounds that they are tokenistic: It’s also insulting that it’s not the actresses in these movies who are seen by the studios as the draw, but the already-recognised brand. Hollywood’s answer to women being starved of on-screen roles in popular cinema is to pack its female stars into what it presumes are ‘safe’ existing franchises.199 The same criticisms have been levelled at race-swapped (or “racebending”) remakes, as alluded to in Candice Frederick’s critique of the announced black remake of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer television series: What’s insulting is the thought that we’re supposed to be happy with whatever representation we get, without understanding that what we

The economic remake

75

crave and demand goes far beyond the simple presence of a person of color on screen. It’s about substance. It’s about the opportunity for an actor or actress of color to be able to stand on their own merit and not in the shadows of their white predecessor. It’s about the importance of highlighting original stories by and featuring talent of color – without presenting it through a white gaze.200 Here, insult hinges on the limited and reductive nature of black version remakes (something expanded on further in Chapter 6). This chapter has focused on the financial benefits created by remakes and highlighted some of the costs and risks of them. At various junctures the intersection between economic motivations and nostalgia drivers has been noted. In Chapter 3, the discussion specifically hones in on nostalgia as a key driver in (re)production.

Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19

20 21 22 23 24

Anderson, 2018, 31.

Goggin, 2010, 106.

Klein and Palmer, 2016, 12.

Fine, 1994.

Willmore, 2017.

Rosewarne, 2019a.

Knöppler, 2017, 9.

Mera, 2009, 2.

Rolls and Walker, 2009, 186

Simpson, 2019.

“Disney stuffs pockets with another cash-grab”, 2019.

Porter, 2019.

Han, 2019.

Wilken, 2015; Burton, 2015; Mendelson, 2016; Ellison, 2018.

Salas, 2009; Wilken, 2015.

Wills, 1998, 159.

“Stop hating remakes – you love them”, 2016.

In her work on Bollywood, film theorist Neelam Sidhar Wright describes the

“somewhat ritualistic inclination to juxtapose the superiority of an original text against its ‘inferior’ remake” (Wright, 2015, 148). In her discussion of US adap­ tations of French films, film theorist Lucy Mazdon observes the “wider body of (particularly French) criticism which condemns remakes, dismissing them as ‘pap’ purely because they are remakes” (Mazdon, 2000, 1). A Sacramento Bee article presents the sci-fi film The Blob (1958) – which was remade in 1988 – as an example of this, whereby it is acknowledged that while the 1958 film “[isn’t] very good,” it has nonetheless “attained its cult status because its monster is so curious and the plot is so silly” (“A re-formed ‘Blob’ jells into a scary remake of a cult hit”, 1988). Forrest and Koos, 2002, 2–3.

Chan, 2009, 8.

Findley, 1998.

“Put simply, diminishing returns means that output does not rise in exact pro­

portions to increases in inputs” (Myers, 2004, 96). Bradshaw, 2016.

76

The economic remake

25 Harvey, 2011. 26 Phelan, 2010. 27 Mudhar, 2019; Nashawaty, 2019; “10 reboots that were better than the original”, 2019; Travers, 2018b; Dawson, 2016; Doles, 2016; Delgado, 2016. 28 Humphries, 2019. 29 Kooyman, 2012, 97. 30 Herman, 2019. 31 Stenport and Traylor, 2015, 76. 32 Herbert, 2017, 8. 33 In Schembri, 1994. 34 In Weinraub, 1995. 35 Verevis, 2006, 3. 36 In Boboltz, 2017. 37 Mazdon, 2000, 23. 38 Limbacher, 1979, viii. 39 Stewart, 2011. 40 Keveney, 2004. 41 In Freeman, 2015, 14. 42 In Freeman, 2015, 14. 43 In Simmons, 2008. 44 Lang, 2015. 45 In Lang, 2015. 46 Thompson, 2016. 47 Wirt, 2015; Turan, 2015; Hall, 2015. 48 Barsanti, 2018. 49 In Smith, 2016. 50 Mazdon, 2000, 13–14. 51 Hutcheon and O’Flynn, 2013, 5. 52 Forrest and Koos, 2002, 4. 53 Riegler, 2014. 54 Loock, 2016, 280. 55 Braudy, 1998, 327. 56 Mazdon, 2000, 42. 57 Morrison, 1998, 150. 58 Mazdon, 2000, 4. 59 Park, 2009, 114. 60 Goscilo, 2014, 59. 61 Jankowiak, 2009, 29. 62 Park, 2009, 113. 63 Mazdon, 2000, 14. 64 Varndell, 2014, 40. 65 Pierce, 1997, 6. 66 Rolls and Walker, 2009, 186 67 Hatchuel and Vienne-Guerrin, 2017; Cartelli and Rowe, 2007; Cartmell, 2000; Rothwell, 1999. 68 Brooker, 2004. 69 Cartmell, 2010; MacDonald and MacDonald, 2003; Troost and Greenfield, 2001. 70 Barnes, 2011; Nollen, 1996; Pohle and Hart, 1977. 71 Williams, 2007; Smith, 2002. 72 Miller, 2005; Rose, 1996. 73 Druxman, 1975, 50. 74 Kennedy-Karpat and Sandberg, 2017, 6. 75 Eberwein, 1998, 28–30. 76 Vallance, 1997.

The economic remake 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95

96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126

77

Hischak, 2001, 64.

Newman, 2014, 347.

Guha, 2016.

Maltin, 1994, 951.

Briggs, 2018.

Jenkins, 1999.

Yakas, 2017.

Plunkett, 2010.

“Lights, camera . . . a guide to what’s hot (and what’s not) in cinemas this

week”, 2010. Schembri, 2011. Sims, 2012. “Total Recall not one to remember”, 2012. Paatsch, 2019. Hassenger, 2019. Tuckett, 2018a. Tuckett, 2018b. McCoy, 2005. James, 2004. In a Moviehole review of The Hustle (2019) – the remake of Dirty Rotten Scoun­ drels (1988), itself a remake of Bedtime Story (1964) – it is noted that the “film is a straight-up copy-and-paste of the 1988 comedy. With a few millennial and female-centric jokes thrown in instead, of course” (Simpson, 2019). Rolls and Walker, 2009, 186.

Rosewarne, 2019a.

In Falsetto, 2015, 58.

Druxman, 1975, 13.

Druxman, 1975, 15. Limbacher, 1979, viii. Quinn, 2015. Bevan, 2013, 305–306. Robbins, 2000. Finke, 2007. Kendall, 2017, 214. McClintock, 2014. Gerbrandt, 2010. McDowell and Batten, 2005, 19. In Weprint, 2019. Lang, 2015. In Schembri, 1994. Morris, 2016. Carter, 2003, 11. Bevan, 2013, 305–306. Mee, 2017, 200. Milberg, 1990, 1. Birchard, 2004, 71. Genzlinger, 2017. Williams and Mork, 1994. Ebert, 2000, 287. Bullock, 2012. Ford, 2016. Leitch, 2003, 253. Mee, 2017, 200. Johnson, 2009a.

78

The economic remake

127 128 129 130 131 132

Falsetto, 2015, 43. In Natale, 1994. Flynn, 1999. Hutcheon and O’Flynn, 2013, 120–121. Quinn, 2015. “Pottering on, and on”, 2011; Garrahan, 2014; Kang, 2015; Filson and Hav­ licek, 2018. Thompson, 2014; Kamine, 2017; Yeo, 2017; Ferris, 2018. Johnson, 2009a. Mallenbaum, 2018. Verevis, 2006, 3. In Hutcheon and O’Flynn, 2013, 88. Wasko, 2003; Vogel, 2010. Park, 2009, 114. Brustein, 1975. Milberg, 1990, ix. Dowd, 2016. Verevis, 2006. John Kenneth Muir questions the production of made-for-television remakes, asking, “Why bother to remake on videotape, and with amateurish actors, something that had been done so well on film, with excellent acting, the first time around?” (Muir, 2000, 85). Writing in the New York Times, John O’Connor similarly observes, “Generally hobbled by low budgets and short shooting schedules, TV movies have been scandalously short on individual style. The typical product comes out of a construction-by-committee mold. There is little or no room for a personal directorial touch or the kind of imaginative leap that can make a performance memorable” (O’Connor, 1988). Singh, 2019. Leitch, 1990. Martens, 2014, 55. Rosewarne, 2019a. O’Connor, 1988. Knöppler, 2017, 44. Klein and Palmer, 2016, 7. Forrest and Koos, 2002, 6. Park, 2009, 107. Lim, 2009, 194. Park, 2009, 115. Moylan, 2014b. Leitch, 2003, 248. Kerrigan, 2010, 10. Francis Jr., 2013, 6. Knöppler, 2017, 50. Stenport and Traylor, 2015, 78. Kennedy-Karpat and Sandberg, 2017. Valdespino, 1992; Futterman, 1991. Hartl, 1991. In cultural theorist Kathleen Loock’s discussion of Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) and its remakes, she identifies that “the remakes seem to have spawned academic discussions and re-readings of the 1956 movie” (Loock, 2012, 123). Francis Jr., 2013, 23–24. Keegan, 2018. Rosewarne, 2019a.

133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144

145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168

The economic remake 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200

79

In “Robert Redford Doesn’t Want Remakes of His Movies”, 2016. In Francis Jr., 2013, 161. In Membery, 2002. Rosewarne, 2019a. Dunne, 1998, G1. Kopotsha, 2018. Chandler, 2016. Evangelista, 2019. Zeitchik, 2019. Hornaday, 2018. Mee, 2017, 205. Bohnenkamp, Knapp, Hennig-Thurau and Schauerte, 2015, 17. As Monday Sanderson argues in her article on remakes, “If consumers truly want more films or shows that are original, they need to start spending their money and time on the original products” (Sanderson, 2016). Shennan, 2009. Carter, 2003, 11. Shales, 1988. Schoettle, 1990. Speed and Cameron-Wilson, 1997, 139. Barber, 2010. Patterson, 2006. Feeney, 2019. Biancolli, 2010. Newby, 2019. Mee, 2017, 200. Thompson, 2016. Dale, 2018. Mullins, 2015. Rowles, 2011. Coffey, 2019. Rosewarne, 2019a. Morris, 2016. Frederick, 2018.

3

The nostalgic remake

Nostalgia is often understood as a pining for the past. In part, this is accu­ rate, but the idea is also a little more nuanced. Nostalgia isn’t about the longing for history as lived nor, in the context of media studies, is it about precise portrayals of the past; instead, it centers on looking backwards with an eye to idealization: as cultural theorist Svetlana Boym contends, it’s “a longing for a home that no longer exists or has never existed. Nostal­ gia is a sentiment of loss and displacement, but it is also a romance with one’s fantasy.”1 A key component of nostalgia is the rewriting of the past to make it something worth pining for: as I have argued elsewhere, nostalgia “is about fetishizing the good bits – or even, the imagined bits – and craft­ ing a past that is sepia-hued and perfect, even if it bears no semblance to reality.”2 Key in nostalgic screen presentations is a disproportionate focus on the aesthetics of a period – the music, the fashion – that trigger positive memo­ ries, while downplaying the more complicated elements such as the social, economic or political struggles. It is for this reason that nostalgia films3 – or nostalgic portrayals – are often considered as conservative renderings, operating from the simplistic belief that the past was the good ol’ days. The more we remake and refilm depictions of the past the more frequently the message of the past as better and worth glorifying is repeated. Nostalgia – be it personal nostalgia or the commercial possibilities cre­ ated by it – is a key driver in remaking. The remake exists in a mediascape where audiences are not only aware of past versions but quite probably have seen them. Remakes, therefore, must grapple with audience fond­ ness for an earlier version – potentially even an idealization for that earlier version4 – while simultaneously cultivating curiosity about new storytelling capacities. Nostalgia for “original” or earlier films underpins much of the negative rhetoric hounding remakes – that a new version can’t possibly compare to the old and that to even try is blasphemous5 – and undergirds the rou­ tinely critical discourse about remakes where they are criticized as every­ thing from rip-offs to knock-offs, to clones and pale imitations.6 Michael

The nostalgic remake

81

Druxman, in his book on remakes, discusses these ideas, spotlighting the role of nostalgia in our collective romanticizing of earlier productions: The biggest ‘cross’ that the producer of a remake must bear is his audi­ ence’s memories. ‘Magnificent’ pictures like Bela Lugosi’s Dracula [1931] and John Barrymore’s Svengali [1931] remain vivid in viewer’s minds, but few realize that, seen today as anything except a historical record, these films would be subject to ridicule. Changes in production and acting techniques, as well as the aforementioned maturing social attitudes of the public, have made many early classics anachronisms. Nevertheless, people cling to their precious memories of a grander cin­ ema in days gone by and . . . almost no remake – despite its quality – can shatter the fondness a spectator might hold for the original he saw in his youth. It’s called nostalgia.7 Film critic Ty Burr makes a similar point, observing how nostalgia clouds objectivity: “Any cultural artifact you watched when you are young enough to be in footie pajamas, you will never ever have any critical distance on, and you want it to remain the same forever.”8 This chapter focuses on nostalgia as a driver in remake production. Nostalgia, in part, explains why audiences keep returning to see new spins on old titles, and nostalgia plays a key role in dictating Hollywood output whereby such sentiments are created and commercialized. I begin this chapter exploring the capacity for remakes to, metaphori­ cally, take audiences home again: as something that guides viewers back in time, notably so through the reappearance of cast members from ear­ lier productions. This chapter then examines stories – from fairy tales to canonical literature – that are returned to time and time again to court feelings of nostalgia in an audience. I explore the positives and negatives of using remakes to revisit the past and discuss remakes as revisionist history and examine the notion of permanent nostalgia; I conclude this chapter discussing remakes that consciously eschew nostalgic associations altogether, in favor of a modern or postmodern presentation.

Going home again Nostalgia is underpinned by the longing to return to a time and place pre­ viously inhabited while simultaneously recognizing the impossibility of it, hence why the sentiment is so often tinged with melancholy: as Boym notes, that home no longer exists and perhaps never did. This idea – and the com­ plex feelings associated – is key to understanding the connection between nostalgia and remaking. We know that going backwards and reliving our pasts is impossible. This knowledge, however, doesn’t obliterate the desire. So, for the same reason that we listen to music that fuels our reminiscing or

82

The nostalgic remake

partake of other memory-evoking experiences, we consume screen media that rekindles emotions associated with a past that is no longer properly accessible to us.9 Filmmakers understand this yen. As humans they’ve undoubtedly felt it themselves, and as businesspeople they comprehend that there is profit to be made from selling access. I’ve written elsewhere about the use of nostalgic pleas in advertising whereby the music and fashion of past eras are used to remind audiences of “better, simpler times, when they were [for example] less affected by worry or illness.”10 Such ideas have relevance to screen remakes in that the new production is invariably consumed later in life than when the earlier version was seen. The viewer is older and is, potentially, looking backwards to when things were imagined as easier or better and when a longer life was ahead. By consuming a remake, the audience might recognize that the experience isn’t the same as their first viewing11 – that they can’t really go home again – but they can nonetheless watch something that bares sufficient semblance to evoke similar sentiments. Filmmaker Chris Columbus alludes to this in his explanation for the popularity of remakes, noting that “[t]hey touch into that emotional connection we have with our past.”12 While connecting an audience to their past is important, concerted efforts are often made to specifically transport audiences back to child­ hood. Psychologists discuss the “reminiscence bump,” which explains how the things we experience – and, as related to this discussion, the media we consume – in our youth are often more memorable and potent in the formation of self than the experiences of adulthood, primarily because those experiences were some of our firsts. It is, therefore, arguably a more effective experience of nostalgia to take audiences back to childhood and adolescence – to times when certain films and television series played a dis­ tinctly formative role – and help us recapture an idealized time from our per­ sonal history. As media analyst Paul Dergarabedian explains, “When these reboots or remakes are done in the right way, it’s like a time machine.”13 For parents and grandparents, getting the opportunity to do this, while simultaneously introducing a child to a beloved story, undoubtedly holds special appeal.14 Such ideas explain a variety of contemporary trends in remaking, notably so Disney live-action remakes. In his discussion of Beauty and the Beast (2017) – the live-action remake of the 1991 animation – media theorist Ryan Lizardi notes that in the new production “all the nostalgia groundwork has been laid to attract everyone whose childhood was partially defined by the original film.”15 Remaking media that had once targeted a youth audience and thus – if popular – was likely definitional in childhoods is undoubtedly a key motivation for filmmakers. Reproduction of childhood-defining media can be witnessed widely, from Disney’s reimagining of its back catalogue to new productions of classics like Jurassic Park (1993)/Jurassic World (2015) and Ghostbusters (1984/2016). This idea is also well-illustrated by the slew of television shows reimagined as films. While it’s quite common for a television series to release a film during

The nostalgic remake

83

its run – think of The Simpsons (1989–) and The Simpsons Movie (2007) – or for a film released shortly after the series end like Sex and the City (1998– 2004) and the first movie in 2008, most relevant to this discussion are series that are reimagined as films more than a decade after the series conclusion, for example: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

The Honeymooners (1955–1956) reimagined as a film in 2005. Leave it to Beaver (1957–1963) reimagined as a film in 1997. Maverick (1957–1962) reimagined as a film in 1994. Rocky and His Friends (1959–1961) and The Bullwinkle Show (1961–1963) reimagined as the made-for-television film Boris and Natasha in 1992. The Twilight Zone (1959–1964) reimagined as a film in 1983. The Untouchables (1959–1964) reimagined as a film in 1987. The Flintstones (1960–1966) reimagined as a live-action film in 1994. Car 54, Where Are You? (1961–1963) reimagined as a film in 1994. McHale’s Navy (1962–1966) reimagined as a film in 1997. The Beverly Hillbillies (1962–1971) reimagined as a film in 1993. My Favorite Martian (1963–1966) reimagined as a film in 1999. The Fugitive (1963–1967) reimagined as a film in 1993. Bewitched (1964–1972) reimagined as a film in 2005. The Addams Family (1964–1966) reimagined as a live-action film in 1991 and as an animated feature in 2019. The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (1964–1968) reimagined as a film in 2015. Get Smart (1965–1970) reimagined as a film in 2008. Lost in Space (1965–1968) reimagined as a film in 1998. Thunderbirds (1965–1966) reimagined as a film in 2004. Dark Shadows (1966–1971) reimagined as a film in 2012. Dad’s Army (1968–1977) reimagined as a film in 2016. The Mod Squad (1968–1973) reimagined as a film in 1999. The Brady Bunch (1969–1974) reimagined as The Brady Bunch Movie in 1995. The Sweeney (1974–1978) reimagined as a film in 2012. Starsky and Hutch (1975–1979) reimagined as a film in 2004. Charlie’s Angels (1976–1981) reimagined as a film in 2000 (with a sequel in 2003), and then again in 2019. CHiPs (1977–1983) reimagined as a film in 1998 and again in 2017. The Incredible Hulk (1978–1982) reimagined as the film Hulk in 2003 and then as The Incredible Hulk in 2008. The Dukes of Hazzard (1979–1985) reimagined as a film in 2005. Inspector Gadget (1983–1986) reimagined as a film in 1999. The A-Team (1983–1987) reimagined as a film in 2010. Miami Vice (1984–1990) reimagined as a film in 2006. Jem (1985–1988) reimagined as the film Jem and the Holograms in 2015. The Equalizer (1985–1989) reimagined as a film in 2014 (with a sequel in 2018).

84

The nostalgic remake

• 21 Jump Street (1987–1991) reimagined as a film in 2012 (with a sequel in 2014). • Baywatch (1989–2001) reimagined as a film in 2017. The rebooting of a television series more than a decade after the conclusion of its first run also illustrates this same idea: • The Twilight Zone (1959–1965) rebooted in 1985–1989 and then again in 2003–2003. • The Untouchables (1959–1964) rebooted in 1993–1994. • The Fugitive (1963–1967) rebooted in 2000–2001. • Lost in Space (1965–1968) rebooted in 2018-. • Hawaii Five-O (1968–1980) rebooted in 2010-. • One Day at a Time (1975–1984) rebooted in 2017-. • Poldark (1975–1978) rebooted in 2015-. • Charlie’s Angels (1976–1981) rebooted in 2011. • Roots (1977) rebooted in 2016. • Battlestar Galactica (1978–1979) rebooted in 2004–2009. • Dallas (1978–1991) rebooted in 2012–2014. • Dynasty (1981–1989) rebooted in 2017-. • MacGyver (1985–1992) rebooted in 2016-. • She-Ra: Princess of Power (1985–1987) rebooted as She-Ra and the Prin­ cesses of Power (2018–). • Full House (1987–1995) rebooted as Fuller House (2016–). • Murphy Brown (1988–1998) rebooted in 2018. • Roseanne (1988–1997) rebooted in 2018 (and then repackaged as The Conners [2018-]). • Beverly Hills, 90210 (1990–2000) rebooted as 90210 (2008–2013). • The Flash (1990–1991) rebooted in 2014-. • Twin Peaks (1990–1991) rebooted in 2017. • Melrose Place (1992–1999) rebooted in 2009–2010. • Boy Meets World (1993–2000) rebooted as Girl Meets World (2014–2017). • The X-Files (1993–2002) rebooted in 2016-. • Charmed (1998–2006) rebooted in 2018-. • Will & Grace (1998–2006) rebooted in 2017-. • Gilmore Girls (2000–2007) rebooted as Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life (2016). • Queer Eye for the Straight Guy (2003–2007) rebooted as Queer Eye (2018–). • Veronica Mars (2004–2007) rebooted in 2019-. Several observations can be made about these remakes and reboot produc­ tions. First, while producers certainly hope for an audience broader than adults seeking to revisit their youth through a new incarnation of a child­ hood favorite – and efforts are indeed made by producers to modernize

The nostalgic remake

85

material to appeal to a broader, new generation audience16 – undoubtedly hope is primarily pinned to the nostalgia crowd: to people who have fond memories of the originary material (and, notably, fond memories of the time in their life when they first saw it) and can be lured into watching a contemporary reimagining. Second, as evident in many of the aforementioned film adaptations, a disproportionate number of reimagined television series had their first run in the late 1950s through until the 1970s. The most obvious explanation for this is that these decades were the earliest – and thus formative – years of television. Just as Hollywood remade the films from its own nascent days – adapting, for example, silent films into talkies and black and white films into color (see Chapter 1) – it makes sense that television’s own back cata­ logue would be mined in the decades following its inception. Part of the appeal in reimagining television from the 1950s–1970s is also grounded in nostalgia for a period considered as a “golden age”. During the 1950s, for example, there had been a trend to remake films from Hol­ lywood’s “glory days” – the 1930s – in an attempt to recapture audience excitement about cinema,17 something that had become crucial as film waged war with the new entertainment medium of television. When early television shows are reimagined either as films or rebooted as a series – and notably so when this transpires in an era when both film and television now compete with the internet as a primary entertainment medium – a similar attempt is made to evoke the positive sentiments associated with the “golden” days. Third, another key component in remaking and reimagining decadesold television is filmmaker inspiration. Cultural theorist Kathleen Loock, for example, examines the 2000s trend of remaking media from the 1980s – she spotlights examples including the aforementioned film adaptations of 21 Jump Street and The A-Team, as well as Clash of the Titans (1981/2010), TRON (1982) and its remake TRON: Legacy (2010), The Thing (1982/2011), Footloose (1984/2011), Arthur (1981/2011), Fright Night (1985/2011) and Conan the Barbarian (1982/2011) – and proposes one central explanation: “An entire generation of today’s filmmakers, actors, and cinemagoers grew up with and still remembers television shows and films of the 1980s.”18 To this list we could add other 1980s films revisited in the first decade of the 2000s, for example: Fame (1980/2009), The Fog (1980/2005), The Good Thief (1980/2002), The Karate Kid (1984/2010), Mother’s Day (1980/2010), My Bloody Valentine (1981/2009), Can’t Buy Me Love (1987) remade as Love Don’t Cost a Thing (2003), Hairspray (1988/2007) and Planes, Trains and Automo­ biles (1987) remade as Due Date (2010). The same trend can be observed in the decade that followed, with film and television from the 1990s revisited in the 2010s. Some examples have already been mentioned thus far – Full House (1987–1995)/Fuller House (2016–), Twin Peaks (1990–1991/2017), Beauty and the Beast (1991/2017), Jurassic Park (1993)/Jurassic World (2015),

86

The nostalgic remake

Charmed (1998–2006/2018–), Will & Grace (1998–2006; 2017–) – and oth­ ers include: • The sci-fi film Flatliners (1990) remade in 2017. • The dystopian drama Handmaid’s Tale (1990) – based on the 1985 Mar­ garet Atwood novel – remade as a series in 2017-. • The horror mini-series It (1990) remade as a film in 2017. • The comedy-horror film Tremors (1990) remade in 2018. • The crime-drama Point Break (1991) remade in 2015. • The animated series Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (1993–1999) (itself the US transnational remake of the Japanese series Kyôryû sentai Jûrenjâ (Super Sentai Zyuranger) [1992–1993]), reimagined as the live-action film Power Rangers in 2017 • The animated The Lion King (1994) remade as a live-action film in 2019. • The British romcom Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) reimagined as a television series in 2019-. • The made-for-television vampire-drama Mother, May I Sleep With Danger? (1996) remade in 2016. • The sitcom Sabrina, the Teenage Witch (1996–2003) reimagined as Chill­ ing Adventures of Sabrina in 2018-. • The sci-fi film Men in Black (1997) revisited as Men in Black: International in 2019. • The animated Mulan (1998) remade as a live-action film in 2020. • The animated Aladdin (1999) remade as a live-action film in 2019. • The adventure drama The Mummy (1999) – based on the 1932 film – remade in 2017. • The horror film The Blair Witch Project (1999) remade as Blair Witch in 2016. A range of other remake and reboot projects based on 1990s material were also announced during the writing of this book including Home Alone (1990),19 The Witches (1990),20 Mad About You (1992–1999),21 The Crow (1994),22 Clueless (1995),23 Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1996–2003)24 and The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996).25 Just as nostalgia on the part of filmmakers inspired those making films in the 2000s to revisit their 1980s childhoods and then directors in the 2010s to revisit their 1990s childhoods, this can be witnessed in the behav­ ior of directors in decades past, too. Further, Richard Corliss, writing for Time, argues it’s not just directors looking backwards to the media of their childhoods but that studio heads do the same: “Middle-aged directors and moguls look back at the icons of their youth and think the next best thing to reliving their youth is remaking it.”26 The 2000s remakes of 1980s media and the 2010s remakes of the 1990s media provides a strong indication that it is highly likely that new millennium media will be revisited in the 2020s and so forth.27 Such examples are indicative of the generation that

The nostalgic remake

87

has – at least historically – separated a film from its predecessor although, as explored later in this chapter, there are signs that such spacing may be shrinking. While remakes can make nostalgic pleas to audiences in various ways – use of music is an obvious and extensively theorized one28 – in this section I explore the less examined example of casting whereby actors from origi­ nal material i) reprise a role in a remake, ii) take on a new role in a remake, or iii) appear via cameo. Through these appearances, a link is established between the new production and the old, and the audience is provided a very specific visual connection to their own past (and notably to that media item’s past). Film theorist Constantine Verevis dubs this as “celebrity inter­ textuality,”29 and James Francis Jr. in his work on horror observes that it is a “definite trend to see cast, crew, and production members from original films work in remakes.”30 The appearance of cast members in more than one version of the story is widely apparent as examined in the next section. Character reprisals, new roles and cameos In film theorist Robert Eberwein’s taxonomy of remakes, he lists one type as “a remake in which the same star plays the same part.”31 His examples include Ingrid Bergman playing Anita in the Swedish drama Intermezzo (1936) and in its American remake (1939) and Bing Crosby playing Jim in Holiday Inn (1942) and then reprising the role (renamed Bob) in the remake White Christmas (1954). In several remake examples, actors return to re-inhabit their role from the originary production. While this is some­ thing that – as illustrated by the Intermezzo example – often occurs in English-language adaptations of foreign films (and, occasionally, vice versa), as well as in alternate-language versions filmed concurrently,32 it also happens in a range of English-language remakes of English-language con­ tent. A role reprisal can take several forms, from a character having equal prominence in the remake as they had in the earlier film or series, alter­ natively, with the role reprisal substantially downgraded in size and scope. Such examples include: • In 1921, George Arliss played former British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli in the silent biopic Disraeli. Arliss reprised the role in the 1929 talkie remake. Arliss, in fact, reprised roles on two other occasions, playing the musician Montgomery Royle in the 1922 silent and 1932 talkie versions of the drama The Man Who Played God, and playing the Raja of Rukh in the silent adventure film The Green Goddess (1923) and its 1932 talkie remake. • In 1922, Alan Hale played Little John in Robin Hood and reprised the role in the remake The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938). • In 1925, Lon Chaney played the ventriloquist Echo in the silent crimedrama The Unholy Three. Chaney did so again in the 1930 talkie remake.

88

The nostalgic remake

• In 1926, John Barrymore played Captain Ahab in the silent Moby Dick adaptation The Sea Beast. Barrymore reprised the role in the talkie Moby Dick (1930). • In 1927, Greta Garbo played Anna Karenina in the silent Tolstoy adap­ tation Love. When the film was remade as Anna Karenina (1935), Garbo played Karenina once again. • In 1927, Ivor Novello played the title character in the British silent mys­ tery The Lodger. Novello reprised the role in the talkie remake The Phan­ tom Fiend (1932). • In 1929, Marion Davies played the title character in the silent drama Marianne. That same year the film was remade as a musical and Davies played Marianne once again. • In 1933 and again in 1949, Olin Howland played schoolteacher Mr. Davis in the period-drama Little Women. • In 1934, Frank Capra directed the comedy-drama Broadway Bill, and in 1950 remade the film as Riding High. Some of the actors from Broadway Bill reprised their roles including Raymond Walburn as Pettigrew, Clar­ ence Muse as Whitey and Margaret Hamilton as Edna. • In 1944, Frank Puglia played Prince Cassim in the fantasy Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves. Puglia played the role again in the remake The Sword of Ali Baba (1965). • In 1950, James Stewart starred as Elwood in the comedy-fantasy Harvey. When the film was remade for television in 1972, Stewart reprised his role. (Jesse White also reprised his part.) • In 1958, Christopher Lee first played Dracula in House of Dracula. Lee played the part in several other retellings including: Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966), Dracula Has Risen from the Grave (1968), Scars of Dracula (1970), Taste the Blood of Dracula (1970), Count Dracula (1970), Dracula A.D. 1972 (1972), The Satanic Rites of Dracula (1973) and Dracula and Son (1976). • In 1961, Joanna Barnes played gold-digger Vicki in the family-comedy The Parent Trap. When the film was remade in 1998 Barnes returned as Vicki, the aunt of a new generation gold-digger. • In 1965, Sean Connery played James Bond in the action-drama Thun­ derball. When the film was remade as Never Say Never Again (1983), Con­ nery reprised Bond. • In the aforementioned British sitcom Dad’s Army (1968–1977), Frank Williams played Reverend Timothy Farthing. Williams reprised the role in the 2016 film. • In the British television drama series The Railway Children (1968) and then in its 1970 film remake, Jenny Agutter played Roberta, the oldest daughter. • In 1971, Richard Roundtree played the titular detective in the thriller Shaft. When the film was remade in 2000 and then again in 2019,

The nostalgic remake

• •

• • • • •

• •

• • • •

89

Roundtree reprised his role, albeit with his character now the uncle of the new generation protagonist (Samuel L. Jackson). In 1976, Marc McLure played Jodie Foster’s love interest, Boris, in the body-swap comedy Freaky Friday. In the 2003 remake, Boris returned, now working as a postman. In the crime-drama series Charlie’s Angels (1976–1981), John Forsythe played Charlie. He reprised the role in the film adaptation Charlie’s Angels (2000) and its sequel, Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle (2003). Jaclyn Smith, who played Kelly, one of the protagonist angels in the original series, also had an uncredited cameo – again as Kelly – in the sequel to the first film adaptation, Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle (2003). In the 2019 Charlie’s Angels, Smith made another cameo as Kelly. In the sitcom CHiPs (1977–1983), Erik Estrada starred as Officer Frank Poncherello. When the series was adapted as the made-for-television film CHiPs ’99 (1998), Estrada reprised his role. In 1980, Patrick Stewart played Claudius in Hamlet Prince of Denmark, and did so again in Hamlet (2009). In 1984 and again in 1999, Liz Smith played Mrs. Dilber in film adapta­ tions of Charles Dickens’s A Christmas Carol. In the aforementioned crime-drama series 21 Jump Street, Richard Grieco played Officer Dennis Booker. Grieco reprised the role in 22 Jump Street (2014), the sequel to the first film adaptation, 21 Jump Street (2012). The aforementioned sitcom Roseanne (1988–1997), starred Roseanne Barr, John Goodman and a cast of supporting actors. Each returned for the 2018 reboot (and all bar Barr returned for the spinoff The Conners [2018-]). In 1990 and again in 2018, Kevin Bacon played protagonist Valentine McKee in the aforementioned comedy-horror Tremors. In 1990–1991, the drama series Twin Peaks featured an ensemble cast including Kyle MacLachlan, David Duchovny, Kimmy Robertson, Harry Goaz, Michael Horse, Dana Ashbrook, Richard Beymer and Russ Tam­ blyn. Each actor returned for the rebooted series in 2017. In 1991, Gérard Depardieu played Andre in the French comedy Mon père, ce héros (My Father the Hero). The film was remade in the US as My Father the Hero (1994) and Depardieu reprised his role. In the aforementioned action-fantasy series The Flash (1990–1991), Mark Hammil played The Trickster. Hammil reprised the role in the series remake (2014–). In 1993, Christian Clavier and Jean-Marie Poiré starred in the French comedy-fantasy Les visiteurs (The Visitors). When the film was remade in the US as Just Visiting (2001), both reprised their roles. In 1993, Jeff Goldblum starred as Dr. Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park. Mal­ colm had a cameo in the Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018), the sequel to Jurassic World (2015), the aforementioned remake of the 1993 film.

90

The nostalgic remake

• In 1997, Penélope Cruz played Sofía in the Spanish drama Abre los ojos (Open Your Eyes). When the film was remade in the US as Vanilla Sky (2001), Cruz reprised her role. • The sitcom Will & Grace (1998–2006) starred Eric McCormack, Debra Messing, Sean Hayes and Megan Mullally. When the series was rebooted in 2017, all four actors reprised their roles. • In 2002, Takako Fuji starred as Kayako in the Japanese horror film Ju-On (The Grudge). When the film was remade in the US as The Grudge (2004), Takako reprised her role. • In 2004, David Belle played Leïto in the French thriller Banlieue 13 (District B13). Belle reprised his role – renamed Lino – in the English language remake Brick Mansions (2014). • In 2007, Peter Dinklage played Peter in the British comedy Death at a Funeral. When the film was remade in the US in 2010, Dinklage reprised his role, renamed Frank. • In the Australian comedy-drama series Wilfred (2007–2010) and in its US remake (2011–2014), Jason Gann played the title character. • In the Belgium crime-drama Loft (2008) and its US remake (2014), Matthias Schoenaerts played Filip/Philip. • In the 2009 British sitcom Free Agents and its US remake (2011–2012), Anthony Head played Stephen. • In the Australian television series The Slap (2011) and its US remake (2015), Melissa George played Rosie. • In 2013–2017, David Tennant starred as Alex Hardy in the British crimedrama Broadchurch. When the series was remade in the US as Gracepoint (2014), Tennant reprised his role, renamed Emmett Carver. • In 2019, James Earl Jones reprised his voice work as Mufasa in the remake of The Lion King (1994). During the completion of this manuscript, the return of cast members for a reboot of the sitcom Mad About You (1992–1999) was announced,33 ditto the cast members for a reboot of the youth series Lizzie McGuire (2001–2004).34 On occasions, an actor from an earlier film might appear in the remake as a different character. While sometimes these are roles of comparable esteem, on occasions the actor will move into a supporting role that’s larger than a cameo – that has a name and is a distinct role – but isn’t a protago­ nist. These new roles often take into consideration the passing of time, the ageing of an actor and also the inclination of Hollywood to place younger, contemporary celebrities at the center of big budget releases while rele­ gating older actors to supporting roles (Chapter 1).35 Examples of actors returning for a remake in wholly new roles include: • In 1915, Sessue Hayakawa played an ivory thief in the American silent drama The Cheat. In the French remake Forfaiture (The Cheat) (1937), Hayakawa played the prince.

The nostalgic remake

91

• Jenny Agutter, who had played Roberta in the aforementioned 1968 and 1970 productions of The Railway Children, had a smaller role as the mother of Roberta and her siblings in the 2000 remake. • In the aforementioned sitcom Dad’s Army, Ian Lavender starred as Pri­ vate Frank Pike. In the 2016 film adaptation, Lavender had a smaller role as Brigadier Pritchard. • In 1932, Clark Gable starred as the protagonist plantation owner, Den­ nis, in the romance Red Dust. When the film was remade as Mogambo (1953), Gable starred as the game hunter Victor. • In 1933, William Gargan played Gene, one of the Pardway brothers, in the drama Sweepings. When the film was remade as Three Sons (1939), Gargan played a different brother: Thane. • In 1936, Miriam Hopkins starred as Martha in the romantic-drama These Three. When the film was remade as The Children’s Hour (1961), Hopkins occupied the supporting role of Mrs. Mortar. • In 1943, Betty Grable starred as the singer Kate in the musical Coney Island. When the film was remade as Wabash Avenue (1950), Grable starred as the burlesque star, Ruby. • In 1939, Vincent Price starred as the Duke of Clarence in Tower of Lon­ don. In the 1962 remake, Price starred as Richard of Gloucester. • In 1941, Henry Hull played Doc in the crime-drama High Sierra. When the film was remade as a Western, Colorado Territory (1949), Hull played Fred Winslow. • In 1942, Diana Lynn played the teenager, Lucy, in the romcom Major and the Minor. When the film was remade as You’re Never Too Young (1955), Lynn played the love interest, Nancy. • In 1947, Jane Greer played the female protagonist, Kathie, in the film­ noir Out of the Past. In the remake, Against All Odds (1984), Greer played Mrs. Wyler, the mother of the new female protagonist (Rachel Ward). • In 1949, Donald Crisp starred as the murdered pet owner, Jock, in the family-drama Challenge to Lassie. When the film was remade as Greyfriars Bobby (1961), Crisp played James, the graveyard caretaker. • In 1951, Katharine Hepburn played Rose in the adventure-drama The African Queen. When the film was remade as the Western Rooster Cogburn (1975), Hepburn played Eula. • In the sci-fi horror Invaders from Mars (1953), Jimmy Hunt played David MacLean. In the 1986 remake, Hunt had a much smaller role as the police chief. • In the aforementioned Western-comedy series Maverick (1957–1962), James Garner played one of the protagonist gamblers. When the series was adapted for cinema in 1994, Garner had a new starring role as Mar­ shal Zane Cooper. • In 1959, John Wayne played the small-town sheriff John Chance in the Western Rio Bravo. In 1967, the film was remade as El Dorado with Wayne playing the gunfighter Cole Thornton. In 1970 the film was made again as Rio Lobo with Wayne playing Colonel McNalley.

92

The nostalgic remake

• In the drama The Miracle Worker (1962), Patty Duke starred as Helen Keller. When the film was remade for television in 1979, Duke played Keller’s teacher, Anne Sullivan. • In 1964, Dick Van Dyke played both Bert and also Mr. Dawes Senior in Mary Poppins. In the remake, Mary Poppins Returns (2018), Van Dyke played Mr. Dawes Junior, the son of his 1964 character. • In the 1968 heist film The Thomas Crown Affair, Faye Dunaway starred as Vicki. In the 1999 remake, Dunaway had a cameo as a psychiatrist. • In the British thriller Sleuth (1972), Michael Caine played Milo, the younger of the two protagonists. When the film was remade in 2007, Caine played Andrew, the older protagonist. • In 1974, Burt Reynolds starred as the incarcerated quarterback, Paul Crewe, in The Longest Yard. When the film was remade in 2005, Reynolds played Coach Nate Scarborough. • In 1974, Andrea Martin played Phyl, one of the terrorized sorority girls, in the horror film Black Christmas. In the 2006 remake, Martin played Ms. Mac, the “House Mother” to a new generation of sorority girls. • In the aforementioned British historical-drama Poldark (1975–1978), Robin Ellis played the title character. In the series remake (2015–), Ellis has a recurring role as Reverend Halse. • In the sci-fi series Battlestar Galactica (1978–1979), Richard Hatch starred as Captain Apollo. When the series was remade (2004–2009), Hatch had a recurring role as the politician Tom Zarek. • In 1984, Michael Paré starred as sailor David Herdeg in the drama The Philadelphia Experiment. In the 2012 television movie remake, Paré played the antagonist mercenary Hagan. • In the musical-comedy Hairspray (1988), Jerry Stiller starred as Wilbur Turnblad. In the 2007 remake, Stiller had a small role as the boutique owner, Mr. Pinky. • In 1990, Keifer Sutherland starred as Nelson Wright in the sci-fi film Flatliners. Sutherland had a small role as Dr. Barry Wolfson in the 2017 remake. • In the aforementioned series The Flash (1990–1991), John Wesley Shipp starred as Barry Allen. When the series was remade (2014–), Shipp had a supporting role as Barry’s father, Henry. • In the 1996 television movie Mother, May I Sleep With Danger?, Tori Spell­ ing played a teenager in love with a boy (Ivan Sergei) who was secretly a vampire. In the 2016 remake, Spelling played the mom of the teenage girl protagonist and Sergei played a teacher. • In the horror film Night of the Demons (1998), Linnea Quigley played Suzanne. In the 2009 remake she played the Ballerina Lady. In other examples, actors from the earlier film make cameos in the remake, appearing only briefly and functioning primarily as a Easter egg whereby their appearance serves to link the two productions.36 Christopher Campbell

The nostalgic remake

93

writing for Film School Rejects, describes actor Kevin McCarthy’s – star of Inva­ sion of the Body Snatchers (1956) – appearance in the 1978 remake as one of the earliest examples of an actor making a cameo in a remake.37 Since then, such cameos have been relatively widespread: • Sean Connery starred as Robin Hood in the adventure-drama Robin and Marian (1976). In one of many retellings of the story, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991), Connery had a cameo as Richard the Lion-Hearted. • Mentioned earlier was Erik Estrada starring in CHiPs (1977–1983). When the series was adapted as a second film in 2017, Estrada had an uncredited cameo as a paramedic. • In 1985, Chris Sarandon starred as the protagonist vampire in the aforementioned horror film Fright Night. In the 2011 remake, Sarandon had a cameo as a victim of the remake’s new vampire. • In the sci-fi adventure The Time Machine (1960), Alan Young played both David Filby and James Filby. In the 2002 remake, Young had a cameo as the flower store worker. (Also in the 1960 film, Whit Bissell played Walter Kemp; in the made-for-television remake [1978] Bissell had a small role as Ralph Branly). • Ann Robinson and Gene Berry starred in the sci-fi thriller The War of the Worlds (1953). The two had cameos as Grandmother and Grandfather in the 2005 remake. • In 1962, Gregory Peck and Robert Mitchum starred in the thriller Cape Fear. Both had cameos in the 1991 remake. Martin Balsam, who had played the police chief in the first film, also had a cameo in the remake as a judge. • In the aforementioned sitcom My Favorite Martian (1963–1966), Ray Walston starred as Uncle Martin. When the series was revisited as a film in 1999, Walston had a cameo as Armitan. • In the sitcom The Beverly Hillbillies (1962–1971), Buddy Ebsen played the patriarch Jed Clampett. Ebsen had a cameo in the 1993 film as Barnaby Jones (a cameo which, incidentally, references Ebsen’s star­ ring role in the television mystery-drama Barnaby Jones [1973–1980]). • In the aforementioned sitcom Get Smart (1965–1970), Bernie Kopell played enemy agent Siegfried. Kopell had a brief cameo as a driver in the 2008 film. • The aforementioned sitcom The Brady Bunch (1969–1974) was remade as The Brady Bunch Movie in 1995. Several stars from the original – Florence Henderson, Barry Williams, Christopher Knight and Ann B. Davis – had cameos. • Charlton Heston played protagonist George Taylor in the sci-fi film Planet of the Apes (1968). When the film was remade in 2001, Heston had an uncredited cameo as Zaius. Linda Harrison, who starred as Nova in the 1968 film, also had a cameo in the remake as “Woman in Cart.”

94

The nostalgic remake

• In 1971, Michael Caine played the protagonist gangster in the British thriller Get Carter. When the film was remade in the US in 2000, Caine had a cameo as a loan shark. • In the aforementioned 1975–1979 crime-drama series Starsky and Hutch, David Soul and Paul Michael Glaser starred. When the material was adapted into the 2004 film, both had cameos. • In the 1975 fantasy-adventure film Escape to Witch Mountain, Ike Eisen­ mann and Kim Richards played two of the mysterious orphan children. When the film was remade as Race to Witch Mountain (2009), Eisen­ mann and Richards had cameos. • In the horror film The Omen (1976), Harvey Stephens played the child antichrist. In the 2006 remake, Stephens had a cameo as a reporter. • In the aforementioned 1978–1982 action series The Incredible Hulk, Lou Ferrigno played the title role. Ferrigno had a cameo in the 2008 film adaptation. Bill Bixby, who starred as Dr. David Banner in the series, also had a posthumous cameo in the 2008 film: in one scene the new generation Dr. Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) watches an episode of the sitcom The Courtship of Eddie’s Father (1969–1972) which Bixby had starred in.38 • In the aforementioned adventure series Baywatch (1989–2001), David Hasselhoff starred as Mitch Buchannon. In the 2017 film adaptation, Hasselhoff had a cameo as an unnamed mentor. • In the aforementioned comedy Car 54, Where Are You? (1994), stars of the originary television series (1961–1963), Al Lewis and Nipsey Rus­ sell, had cameos. • The aforementioned Leave it to Beaver (1997) was a cinema adaption of the television series (1957–1963). Stars from the original series made cameos including Barbara Billingsley, Ken Osmond and Frank Bank. • Lost in Space (1998), mentioned earlier, was a cinema adaptation of the television series (1965–1968). Several actors from the television series – Dick Tufeld, Mark Goddard, June Lockhart, Angela Cartwright and Marta Kristen – had cameos. When the series was adapted again (2018–), Bill Mumy, who had played Will Robinson in the 1960s series, had a cameo as “Real Dr. Smith.” • In the aforementioned 21 Jump Street (2012) – the film adaptation of the television series (1987–1991) – several stars from the television series made cameos including Johnny Depp, Peter DeLuise and Holly Robinson. • In the aforementioned action-drama The A-Team (2010) – the film adaptation of the television series The A-Team (1983–1987) – Dwight Schultz and Dirk Benedict, stars of the original series, had cameos. • In Ghostbusters (2016) – a remake of the 1984 film – several stars from the original had cameos including Bill Murray, Sigourney Weaver, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson and Annie Potts.

The nostalgic remake

95

A less overt way – and also a substantially less common way – that personnel are used as nostalgia triggers is when relatives of personnel from the earlier film participate in a remake. In 2019 for example, it was announced that Jason Reitman – son of Ivan Reitman, the director of Ghostbusters (1984) – had signed on to direct a new Ghostbusters film.39 Film theorist Dan Harries describes this type of connection between films as “genetic intertextuality,”40 and it can be identified in several remake examples. Errol Flynn, for exam­ ple, starred in the 1935 adventure-drama Captain Blood (itself a remake of the 1924 film). Flynn’s son, Sean Flynn, then stared in the remake, Son of Captain Blood (1962). In a similar example, Sean Connery had starred in the aforementioned remake Robin and Marian; when the story was revis­ ited in the British series Robin Hood (1984–1986), Sean’s son, Jason Con­ nery, played Robin. Akin to the Reitmans and Ghostbusters, the New Zealand adventure-comedy Goodbye Pork Pie (1980) was directed by Geoff Murphy; the remake Pork Pie (2017) was directed by his son, Matt Murphy. Directors remaking their own films is another way personnel help cultivate nostalgia; such autoremakes are discussed further in Chapter 5. While actors in cameos or role reprisals can serve as nostalgia catalysts for the audience – functioning as an explicit callback or reference to the previous film – it should be noted that their appearance also serves other functions. In a Hollywood Reporter article about Jason Reitman’s appoint­ ment to direct the forthcoming Ghostbusters, for example, his new role was described “as a passing of the torch.”41 Loock makes a similar point in her discussion of cameos and role reprisals, noting that they “suggest conti­ nuity.”42 When an actor from one film appears in a remake – or in those rarer examples when family members make such appearances – an air of legitimacy is lent to a remake whereby it is implied that the new film has, somehow, been sanctioned and won’t besmirch a legacy. (Such an idea is compounded when the director remakes their own film,43 as discussed fur­ ther in Chapter 5.) Cultural theorist Oliver Lindner discusses this in the context of Charlton Heston’s cameo in Planet of the Apes (2001): [Tim] Burton’s version enters into a dialogue with its famous predecessor in several ways, for instance the cameo appearance of Charlton Heston which ‘legitimizes’ Burton’s version as an acceptable new interpretation as well as in the use of several famous quotes from the original.44 Barbara De Fina, who produced Cape Fear (1991) – the remake of the 1962 film – also explored this issue, identifying that director Martin Scorsese’s casting of Gregory Peck and Robert Mitchum in cameos was done because “Marty values and adores them as actors and, in a sense, wanted them in his movie to pass down the torch to Bob [De Niro] and to Nick Nolte.”45 Such torch-passing can help to counter accusations that a remake will somehow besmirch a legacy, an assertion not only made by critics as

96

The nostalgic remake

discussed throughout this book but also by stars and filmmakers. In 2013, for example, Gene Wilder, who played the title character in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971), criticized the remake, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005), as “an insult.”46 An even harsher rebuke came from director Abel Ferrara whose crime-drama The Bad Lieutenant (1992) was remade as Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans (2009): “I wish these people die in hell,” said Ferrara. “I hope they’re all in the same streetcar, and it blows up.”47 Wilder and Ferrara’s comments are indicative of a slew of examples where personnel from earlier films publicly denounce remakes.48 Cast reap­ pearances, therefore, can counter such criticisms, implying that the legacy is perceived as untainted by those whose opinions matter. Such personnel inclusions also function – as alluded to earlier – as both Easter eggs for knowing audiences and nods to cinema history, something De Fina also identifies: I also think it was just a nice touch of cinematic history to have these two actors who were so important in the original Cape Fear, made in 1962.49 A similar explanation is offered by John McTiernan who directed the afore­ mentioned The Thomas Crown Affair (1999) and who described Faye Duna­ way’s cameo as “a cinematic pun.”50 Expanding on this pun idea, remake reappearances can also be interpreted as illustrative of Hollywood’s pride in and, potentially, even fetishism for its own history. Robert Brustein proposed a version of this idea in a 1975 New York Times article about what he consid­ ered as a contemporary scourge of remakes: Hollywood, in particular, has grown increasingly absorbed with its own people – just look at the genus of the biographical film. In the ‘thirties and ‘forties, these movies used to center on such straightforward types as statesmen (Raymond Massey’s Lincoln), scientists (Paul Muni’s), composers (Cary Grant’s Cole Porter), and inventors (Spencer Tracy’s Edison). Now such movies are more likely to be based on the lives of actors – some of whom may have played those very roles. . . . But it reveals an interesting feature of our presentday culture, which is the way it exalts entertainment into a religion, with its own icons, relics, rituals and saints.51 Here, Brustein suggests that reprisals and cameos – as well as the very sto­ ries chosen for reproduction – exhibit Hollywood’s preoccupation with itself and its tendency to be nostalgic about its own history. De Fina also contends that the Cape Fear cameos were partly “motivated a little bit for the publicity,”52 in turn highlighting an additional explanation for their inclusion. Every film is tasked with the burden of building an audi­ ence. To encourage prepublicity buzz, hooks need to be offered to the media.

The nostalgic remake

97

The appointment of Jason Reitman to direct a new Ghostbusters film, for example, gifts a genetic intertextuality angle to reporters and a more inter­ esting story to report beyond just the announcement of yet another remake. The aforementioned two-protagonist crime-thriller Sleuth (1972/2007) provides another illustration of the provision of a prepublicity angle, whereby Michael Caine played a different protagonist in each version. Arti­ cles in advance of the release of the 2007 Sleuth focused on Caine “swap­ ping roles,”53 thus giving reporters an interesting angle. The return of cast members for a remake or a reboot – as mentioned earlier in the context of the resurrected Mad About You and Lizzie McGuire – also provides another point of entry for commentators whereby a new production sets itself apart from other such projects by having the gravitas of returned cast members. James Earl Jones lending his voice again to Mufasa in the 2019 Lion King also served in this fashion, providing a new point of interest for prepublic­ ity commentary.54 While Francis discusses the “trend” of personnel appearing in more than one version of a film, he also importantly cautions that “their support does not always guarantee a successful product by box-office standards or audi­ ence and critic responses.”55 It is therefore necessary to flag that such cast reappearances aren’t always perceived as positive additions. One concern – and, of course, a problem with remake nostalgia more broadly – is that not only can these inclusions rekindle memories of the earlier film but, more problematically, can remind audiences of how much better the preceding title was and potentially offer commentators a too-easy point of compari­ son. This was alluded to in Peter Travers’s largely unfavorable Rolling Stone review of Mary Poppins Returns (2018) – an adaptation of the 1964 film. Travers mentions that Angela Lansbury’s cameo had been written for Julie Andrews – who turned the role down56 – but notes that it was probably best that Andrews didn’t appear: “the last thing this hard-working sequel needs is another reason to cast it in the shadow of its predecessor.”57 Another critique of reappearances – particularly when involving the minor players from an earlier film – is that they can make the remake look like an inferior copy,58 as though audiences are getting the B team rather than the stars. Reed Tucker in the New York Post alludes to this in his satiri­ cal glossary of “BS terms” used by Hollywood, such as spinoff: “We asked the iconic star whom you loved from the franchise back, but he was way too expensive. Also, he’s in rehab. So, instead, enjoy this new adventure featuring the third lead.”59 Such “B-team” inclusions are often criticized as gimmicky and can be part of the reason that a remake only helps to elevate the status of – if not in fact canonize – the earlier film, reminding audiences how much better it was (discussed later in this chapter). Cast reappearances have also been lamented as pointless, something more broadly related to the negative discourse surrounding remakes where such productions are condemned as having failed to justify their exist­ ence.60 In Brian Eggert’s review of the aforementioned Flatliners remake,

98

The nostalgic remake

for example, he criticizes Keifer Sutherland’s reappearance as “pointless” and notes that it “only leads to more confusion by failing to connect the original to the remake.”61 Jeff Goldblum’s aforementioned role reprisal cameo in Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom was derided using the same word.62 Historian Dan Georgakas criticizes the cameo of Sean Connery in the afore­ mentioned Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, identifying the (re)appearance as not just pointless but self-indulgent: Yet another off twist to the tale involves the return of Richard the LionHearted. The king plays no role in the plot, and when he shows himself in the last scenes, he is not Richard at all, but Sean Connery. That is, we are expected to respond to him as Connery, not as a character. We are expected to remember that he played an aged Robin in Robin and Mar­ ian and that he is the quintessential Agent 007. Connery is not listed in the credits or any of the film’s advertising. The manner of his projec­ tion is cinematic self-reference at its most juvenile.63 While Georgakas flags that Connery’s cameo wasn’t used in prepublicity for the film – although Connery’s casting had been speculated on in advance of the film’s release,64 and his cameo65 and its half-million dollar remunera­ tion (for a mere one minute of screen time)66 was indeed mentioned in reporting, thus serving the same purpose – in other examples such casting functions more overtly as a publicity stunt. In Chapter 1 I discuss all-star cast­ ing, and elsewhere I explore different casting techniques like sex-swaps and queer-swaps,67 all of which have been criticized as attention-seeking ploys. Similar criticisms have been extended to the kinds of casting discussed in this chapter whereby they are perceived as failing to add value to a repro­ duction. In a review of the 2007 Sleuth remake, for example, Liam Lacey in The Globe and Mail criticizes Michael Caine’s new starring role as “stunt cast­ ing.”68 Media theorist George Plasketes analyzes stunt casting more broadly, dubbing it as “gimmicky” and arguing that it often feels “forced.”69 While any media item can trigger nostalgic sentiment for the person to whom it carries meaning, certain stories are more commonly associated with such emotions, particularly so those with strong appeal to children and thus to an adult audience trying to recapture sentiments associated with their own personal history. The next section explores this idea through an investigation of trends in the stories that get repeatedly refilmed.

Revisiting something perennial The refilming of certain stories highlights that there is a unique and nota­ bly enduring cultural appeal in tales that have been told across media for hundreds of years. From Shakespeare’s plays to beloved characters like Robin Hood and Sherlock Holmes to novels like Mary Shelley’s Franken­ stein (1818) or Alexandre Dumas The Three Musketeers (1844) – i.e., material

The nostalgic remake

99

constituting the Western literature canon – the history of cinema is replete with screen adaptations of cherished plays and novels. In this section I pro­ pose reasons why certain stories are often repeatedly revisited by filmmak­ ers. While in Chapter 2 I discussed the affordability of adapting public domain content, three other explanations proposed in this chapter are the safety of the familiar, the continued relevance of canonical stories and the malleability of such works. The safety of the familiar The concept of “comfort food” centers on familiar foods that we associate with our past: eating them again helps to capture some of those good feel­ ings and also, potentially, soothe modern day anxieties. Oftentimes, com­ fort foods are those that we enjoyed as children, which are simplistic in their flavor profile and are often highly caloric: mac and cheese being the obvi­ ous example. Remade versions of beloved stories can provide similar com­ fort food-type pleasures whereby audiences know pretty well what they’ll get and are motivated to consume them by the simple yen to partake in known pleasures.70 (It is no surprise that remakes are sometimes described as guilty pleasures.)71 Adam Karmani discusses this in his Esquire work on remakes, explaining the continued appeal of movies, which, objectively, may not be “good films” but which nonetheless provide certain joys to audiences: Ah nostalgia, a testament to the ‘good ol’ days’ no matter how bad, cheesy or downright ridiculous an idea can be, when viewed through the rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia it instantly becomes a timeless mas­ terpiece with insurmountable charm even though you swear by objec­ tivity gods.72 The sci-fi series Stranger Things (2016–) – while not a remake of any one media item – has been widely discussed as having consciously used nostalgic pleas to build its audience; something Alec Bojalad discusses in Den of Geek!: It was almost an exact 50/50 cross between Steven Spielbergian and Stephen Kingian tropes. A group of preteen kids in the ’80s deal with the supernatural forces in their town. It’s E.T. [1982] and It [1990] placed into a tumbler with dozens of other ’80s and ’90s movie tropes and shaken up until a story comes out.73 In examining the appeals of Stranger Things, cultural critic Celia Wren also alludes to the comfort food idea, observing that “sometimes one craves relia­ ble, comfortable entertainment, even if it is objectively shopworn. And the ’80s setting helps the elements of horror and suspense go down easy.”74 This same point can be made about Spielberg’s own sci-fi film Ready Player One (2018) which, while again not a remake, shares Stranger Things’s nostalgia pleas.

100 The nostalgic remake Several writers point to the distinct comforts of revisiting a beloved story explaining why, despite remakes often being vocally loathed, in fact, such material is heartily consumed. In Peter Suderman’s Vox review of The Magnificent Seven (2016) – the remake of the 1960 film of the same title, which itself is a remake of the Japanese film Shichinin no samurai (The Seven Samurai) (1954) – he observes the enduring appeal of familiar stories: This new Magnificent Seven [2016] is fine, but not great. Yet there’s some­ thing comfortable and friendly about it. It’s a tale you’ve seen told over and over again before, one whose inherent satisfactions are eternal.75 Corliss similarly attributes the pervasiveness of remakes to the reassuring pleasures of known quantities: What has changed in the past few years is that instead of escaping into novelty (that shark! that spaceship! that dinosaur!), we now flee to the familiar. Perhaps it’s because the repetition of a fairy tale – or one told from a different angle – validates an underlying message: that in a world full of knotty menace, someone who cares will always be there to tell us the same story and rock us into sweet dreams.76 Corliss returned to this idea several years later in his review of the sci-fi thriller Total Recall (2012), the remake of the 1990 film: Audiences can be counted on to see a remake of a venerable hit rather than some work of startling originality, the way children demand to hear a favorite fairy tale for the hundredth time. They don’t want to be perplexed by the new; they want to relive the shock of the old.77 The pleasures of revisiting the comforting – if not romanticized – aspects of one’s past provide pleasures and a quasi-time-travel opportunity that posi­ tion remakes as perennially appealing despite their shopworn-ness. While audiences are repeatedly drawn to familiar and beloved stories, more simply, we’re drawn to good stories, and therefore it often doesn’t really matter how many times the tale has been told on screen. Doris Milberg makes this point in her book Repeat Performances: A Guide to Hollywood Movie Remakes, when she discusses “women’s pictures” and their frequent remaking: The movie moguls . . . were not fools – they knew it was ‘the little woman’ who was the ticket buyer in the family – and what was her pref­ erence? Good old fashioned love stories in every shape and form – and she didn’t care how many times one story was filmed.78

The nostalgic remake

101

Of course, just as comfort food has a downside – often fattening with low nutrients – there are also downsides to our preoccupations with the com­ forts of the familiar. First, as alluded to earlier by Karmani, often these films aren’t particularly good. While it is important to acknowledge that some­ times “bad, cheesy and ridiculous” escapism might be precisely what an audience craves, their continued production leads to concerns about the dumbing-down of American cinema (Chapter 4) and also a potential tip­ ping point leading to a “peak remake” crisis (Chapter 2), particularly when such films are produced in quick succession (discussed later in this chapter). Second, as Corliss hinted, for audiences of Hollywood reproductions, sto­ ryline novelty is no longer as important as remaking the familiar, something that Brustein lamented in 1975: A nation which always looked forward is now in the process of looking backward, with considerable longing for the real or imagined comforts of the past. Where audiences once were eager for what was novel and innovative, they now seem more comfortable with the familiar, as if they wished to escape from contemporary difficulties into the more reassur­ ing territory of the habitual and the known. . . . The power of this nos­ talgia has grown so strong that it is now almost impossible to measure.79 The eschewing of novel and innovative storytelling constitutes a significant component of the negative discourse around remakes, with such do-overs often accused of illustrating Hollywood’s risk-aversion and lack of ideas (Chapter 5). Connected to this idea are opportunity cost concerns: that when resources are dedicated to producing a new version of an old film, an original and innovative production doesn’t get made. Gregory Miller alludes to this in his New York Post article on Disney remakes: I have no doubt most of these movies will give rise to massive amounts of nostalgia within me. When Belle walks into the ballroom in that yel­ low gown, a shiver will go up my spine. When Mowgli dances with mon­ keys, I will be furious that I wasn’t abandoned at birth in the jungle. But just because these films evoke pleasant feelings doesn’t mean they should happen. What’s kept the Disney brand relevant decade after decade is its ability to reinvent. . . . Disney should now be looking for the next Frozen [2013] – not trying to recapture its magic.80 While remaking familiar and beloved material undoubtedly sells tickets, the downside is a limited pool of stories that stir nostalgia and that keep being remade over and over again for each generation, rather than the creation of wholly new media items – like Frozen – to enable the adults of tomorrow to reminisce about stories that are different from those beloved by their parents.

102 The nostalgic remake Stories that remain relevant Certain stories are repeatedly refilmed because they are entrenched in the Western canon, and thus audiences have an established affinity with them. These stories are often comforting and familiar but, as relevant to this sec­ tion, they have notably stood the test of time. This endurance is illustrated in several ways. First, at a macro level, such stories have functioned to estab­ lish genre conventions and mold audience expectations, something film theorist Robert Kolker explores: The business of filmmaking has always thrived on the fact that viewers remember films, stories, stars and genres. The repetition and sequels and cycles that Hollywood needs in order to reproduce narratives in large numbers depended – and depends still – on the viewer’s ability to recall, respond to, and favor particular films.81 Each genre offers its own set of tropes and conventions, sometimes helping to make all films from that genre seem a little like remakes. While much has been written, for example, about horror being the genre that most fre­ quently cannibalizes its back catalogue82 – as Brian D. Johnson writes in Maclean’s, “No genre is more fond of replicating itself. Zombies, pod peo­ ple, psychopaths, wolf-persons – they love to breed. It’s in their nature”83 – what often looks like a remake can in fact just illustrate a genre trope. As cultural theorist Christian Knöppler notes, “The remake repeats one film, and the film genre repeats a set of conventions.”84 Classic stories have thus delivered us genre, in turn, they often serve as prototypes for films more broadly, hence the degrees of familiarity often apparent in each new incar­ nation and the propensity for films within to seem remake-y. Second, stories that stand the proverbial test of time are ones that manage to acquire new relevance for each generation. Philosopher Juneko Robin­ son discusses this as illustrated by Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) and its subsequent remakes (1978, 1993, 2007): [T]he Invasion of the Body Snatchers tale has been so enduring precisely because it speaks to our most deep-seated and universal of fears – that of the self-dissolution that comes with death, of which the fear of inun­ dation, of forced transformation, of being absorbed into something larger than ourselves, are merely variations.85 Knöppler makes a similar point about the Body Snatchers films, noting “the core story is likely to remain relevant . . . it holds a potent metaphor for alienation and social pressure, and expresses a fundamental tension between individuals and communities.”86 (As discussed in Chapter 6, the Body Snatchers story became relevant once again in a post-9/11 zeitgeist where a fear of outsiders had new cultural salience.) These same ideas can

The nostalgic remake

103

be used to understand the enduring appeal of many of the stories that get repeatedly remade, whereby the tale is sufficiently universal to proffer new relevance to each generation. Literary theorist Linda Hutcheon proposes other explanations for the repeated filming of the same pool of stories. First, she spotlights a kind of cultural capital that comes from adapting “high art,” something illustrated by the many literary (re)adaptations, noting that, “Film historians argue that this motivation explains many early cinematic adaptions of Dante and Shakespeare.”87 Second, Hutcheon contends that these canonical stories are simply recognized as easier to film: Linear realist novels, it would appear, are more easily adapted for the screen than experimental ones, or so we might assume from the evi­ dence: the works of Charles Dickens, Ian Fleming, and Agatha Christie are more often adapted than those of Samuel Beckett, James Joyce, or Robert Coover.88 Historian Till Kinzel makes a similar point – specifically in the context of Dickens – noting that the author “is a master storyteller whose narratives have a tremendous visual potential,”89 thus making Dickens’s works dis­ tinctly appropriate for screen re-adaptation and thus explaining the dozens of screen reimaginings of Dickens.90 The repeated filming of these Western canonical tales, of course, only works to reinforce their relevance: if every generation gets one (or more) telling of, for example, a particular fairy tale, that story remains perpetu­ ally relevant and permanently associated with a kind of nostalgia that guar­ antees future remaking. Literary theorist John Ellis makes this point in his discussion of literary adaptations, noting, “Adaptation . . . becomes a means of prolonging the pleasure of the original presentation, and repeating the production of a memory.”91 Film theorist Anat Zanger also alludes to this in her work on remaking: Cinema as a social institution knows what Scherezade seems to have known all along: to narrate is to triumph over death. . . . The constant repetition of the same tale keeps it alive in social memory, continually transmitting its meaning and relevance.92 Film historian Jerry Beck makes the same point explaining the remaking of Disney stories: “If you don’t keep these older intellectual properties alive, then no one will know what they are.”93 Revisiting Dumbo (1941) in 2019 meant that the flying elephant story became relevant for another genera­ tion, thus meaning that another generation knows the material and poten­ tially feels positively toward it, thus likely leading to another reproduction in the years to come. The same thing can be said for the range of Disney remakes where new productions of their old stories keep the tales alive in

104 The nostalgic remake our collective popular culture consciousness, guaranteeing that we’ll see further incarnations. Just as these stories manage to say something new and meaningful to each new generation, they also function as solid foundations to which mod­ ern accoutrements can be adhered, as explored in the next section. Infinitely adaptable stories Canonical literature remains enduringly popular on screen because such stories tend to be highly malleable. Druxman discusses the Robert Louis Stevenson’s story The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1886), for exam­ ple, observing that it has “been filmed more than any other story of that genre.”94 Druxman attributes this to the template that the tale provides for filmmakers to take the material in a variety of directions: “the possibilities for variations of the Jekyll/Hyde theme are seemingly endless. . . . Will he emerge as a man? Woman? Monster?”95 Certainly when examining the range of filmic tellings of the Stevenson story, Druxman’s ideas are easily identi­ fied. In Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde (1971) and Dr. Jekyll and Ms. Hyde (1995), for example, men create “Hyde” alter-egos of homicidal women, deviating from the homicidal man alter-ego of the original story. In the French film Madame Hyde (Mrs. Hyde) (2017), a female protagonist (Isabelle Huppert) conjures an alter-ego following a lightning strike. In Daughter of Dr. Jekyll (1957), a female protagonist (Gloria Talbott) develops an alter-ego of a werewolf. Druxman also contends that classic stories are adaptable to the tastes of each generation: “A masterpiece like The Three Musketeers, first pho­ tographed during the earliest days of the century, is dusted off every decade or so in some country and adapted to fit the then-prevalent entertainment tastes.”96 While Three Musketeers is an example of this, Robin Hood, Frank­ enstein and Dracula are perennially revisited in a similar manner because of their enduring appeal and malleability. The many screen adaptations of Shakespeare stories – reimagined in all kinds of diverse contexts, from soap opera to pornography97 – also illustrates this, Romeo and Juliet being one of the most frequently reimagined plays. While arguably each version attempts to court a new-generation audience, Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo + Juliet (1996) made a concerted effort to specifically entice the “MTV generation,”98 catering to youth audience appetites for contemporary music, fast editing, sex and violence (explored further in Chapter 6). It is worth noting that not only classic literature but also classic films fit this model of being both consistently relevant and also infinitely adaptable. In Suderman’s work on Shichinin no samurai (The Seven Samurai), for exam­ ple, he speculates as to why the film has been remade so many times, akin to endless adaptations of classic literature: In each version of this story, many of the details have been changed – the location, the particulars of the villain’s plot, the mix of characters who make up the team of protectors – but the bones remain the same:

The nostalgic remake

105

A bad guy threatens a small town; the villagers hire a wandering protec­ tor who gathers a motley crew of fighters; the fighters fortify the town; there’s a protracted assault; some of the fighters die; the village is saved. It’s primal and elegant, a story so simple that it works almost at the level of myth. And like many myths, it’s a story that can be told and retold in almost any setting, with almost any set of characters, like a classic cock­ tail that allows for practically endless variation. . . . And it is a reminder, as Hollywood plots have grown both flimsier and more complex, of the virtues of a simple, straightforward story told well.99 The Seven Samurai underwent a genre-swap – going from Samurai film to Western – when it was remade in the US as The Magnificent Seven in 1960. The Western was revisited in a range of conventional reproductions – Return of the Seven (1966), for example, as well as Guns of the Magnificent Seven (1969), The Magnificent Seven Ride! (1972), the television series (1998–2000) and the most recent film (2016) – and also in several unconventional adaptations such as the American sci-fi adventure Battle Beyond the Stars (1980), the Ital­ ian gladiator film I sette magnifici gladiatori (The Seven Magnificent Gladiators) (1983), the Russian circus-themed film Dikiy vostok (The Wild East) (1993), the British sports comedy The Magnificent Eleven (2013) and even an Ital­ ian, Western-themed porn film Rocco e i magnifici 7 (Outlaws) (1998). Even outside of more obvious remakes such as the ones listed here, the tropes popularized by The Seven Samurai are identifiable elsewhere, as Suderman explores: Seven Samurai’s team-building device, in which a leader gathers a diverse group of allies to go on a mission, is now an incredibly common trope: You can see versions of it in films like The Blues Brothers [1980], Ocean’s Eleven [2001], and Inglourious Basterds [2009].100 (I’ve similarly written about this popular “ragtag posse” trope elsewhere).101 In the earliest scholarly work on nostalgia it was considered as a negative emotion and something that needed to be treated and cured, but in the modern era it is considered less as something pathological and more so a predictable aspect of the human condition and, in the context of popular culture, something that brings pleasure to audiences and profit to film­ makers. While the chance to go home again – to watch a remake and have memories from the past evoked – is often understood as enjoyable, this isn’t always the case. While we may have moved on from seeing nostalgia as a mental illness, using a remake to look backwards can yield mixed results, as explored in the next section.

The mixed blessings of backward glances Director Billy Wilder once described remakes as akin to “running into a girlfriend you slept with 30 years ago.”102 This simile alludes to the often

106 The nostalgic remake complicated pleasures of revisiting the past: that it can, for example, be lovely to see an old partner, but that person exists as a reminder of the pass­ ing of time, serves to rekindle good memories as well as bad, and their pres­ ence potentially prompts comparisons. In this section the pleasures and pains of revisiting the past through remakes are explored. The pleasures of the past Nostalgia can motivate audiences to seek out a remake, but it can also facili­ tate comparison whereby the new film is tested against the old, both in terms of film quality and also the extent to which it evokes comparable pleasures. In their anthology Play It Again, Sam: Retakes on Remakes, Andrew Horton and Stuart McDougal address this idea, flagging that “the remake invites the viewer to enjoy the differences that have been worked, consciously and sometimes unconsciously, between the texts.”103 As discussed throughout this book, the discourse around remakes is that audiences hate them: that they’re perceived as lazy and reductive and indic­ ative of the dearth of ideas in Hollywood.104 Less frequently discussed, how­ ever, is the pleasure audiences find in comparing: that for many viewers it is enjoyable to watch a remake and contrast it with the earlier film(s). In fact, such an activity is at the crux of innumerable pop culture think pieces, blog posts and online discussions. Film theorist Daniel Herbert speculates on such pleasures, pondering: “do we approach remakes, sequels, reboots, and franchise films as a kind of game, watching for references to older films and twists on known stories?”105 For some viewers, watching the remake not only evokes memories but also provides an opportunity to feel like an insider: being able to spot the cameos and Easter eggs, for example, and feeling privy to “secret” self-referential jokes. Loock provides an example of a selfreferential joke through a scene from the 21 Jump Street movie – when the Captain (Nick Offerman) can’t remember the police station address: The captain’s memory gap implies that the undercover program – which really means the show – has long been forgotten and no longer occupies a place in the American imaginary (although it in fact does), thereby announcing the film’s own mockingly affectionate relation to its original. . . . It is further directed at a knowledgeable, pop-culture­ literate audience that is . . . [expected] to find pleasure in the film’s metareferences and winks at the 1980s past.106 While such Easter eggs have been criticized by commentators – writer John Biguenet in his work on remakes, for example, contends that, “At its worst, it is a condescending gesture on the part of the director to acknowledge that he or she is superior to the material being presented: it becomes a snide joke for the elite”107 – nonetheless, being able to detect the connec­ tive tissue between films can be satisfying for viewers whose interest in a

The nostalgic remake

107

remake is more emotional than critical (thus, in part, explaining the gap between the preponderance of bad reviews of remakes and the continued patronage of them.) While pleasures exist in comparisons and allusion-counting, a distinct downside of going home again through popular culture is the notion that doing so potentially besmirches fond memories of the earlier production. Besmirching the past When the 2016 sex-swapped Ghostbusters project was announced, the misog­ ynistic backlash was unprecedented: the trailer, for example, became the most disliked in YouTube history.108 While partly the attacks can be explained by the kind of anti-feminist trolling that is an inevitable consequence of any project deemed even vaguely “feminist,” there were some elements that made the Ghostbusters furor unique. Ivan Reitman, who directed the 1984 Ghostbusters, attempted to contextualize some of the vitriol as connected to nostalgia and the aforementioned reminiscence bump, explaining, “There was an enormous amount of love and protectiveness of the first movie. . . . It was seen by many men in their 40s when they were 8 or 9 years old and it was a seminal film experience that they took to heart.”109 Ghostbusters’s beloved-ness meant that a group of adult men deemed the film as forma­ tive and central to their identity and thus the new film was interpreted as jeopardizing this. A theme in the backlash against the 2016 film was accusa­ tions that the remake somehow ruined childhoods and positive memories, something discussed by film theorist Laura Mee: The use of terms like ‘bastardization,’ ‘cannibalization,’ ‘exploitation,’ or the suggestion from some fans that a potential remake ‘raped my childhood,’ suggest that even the potential to ruin an existing film, or the memories associated with it, leads audiences to reject the new ver­ sions a priori.110 Mee contends that the rhetoric behind the Ghostbusters backlash lies in a belief that the remake had the capacity to take something away from the earlier film: “this rhetoric implies that the remaking process changes, challenges, or damages the earlier text, aesthetically, emotionally, or even economically.”111 Even some of the more temperate remarks made by angry adult men opposed to the remake – i.e., “My childhood will of course recover, but there will always be this scuff on it. For me, that is a sad thought”112 – still exhibit a belief that a remake, produced three decades after the first film, has the miraculous ability to alter the positive senti­ ments for the earlier film.113 That there were men complaining about the film long before it was released meant that even without seeing the remake its very existence was perceived as jeopardizing their relationship with the original.114

108 The nostalgic remake For some audiences of beloved films, rather than a remake rekindling positive associations of the predecessor, instead, its existence is perceived as jarring. John Bailey in The Sydney Morning Herald addresses this idea, explaining how “bad” remakes can sour memories: It sounds like an extreme response to something you love, but a disap­ pointing ending can ruin an otherwise fine read. A film that flags in the final reel can equally throw its shadow on all that came before. You’re enjoying yourself immensely, but an hour later you leave the theatre feeling deflated. We each have our own examples. Less commonly con­ sidered is the way that a sequel, a spin-off, a remake or a director’s cut can achieve the same effect. . . . To fence off that disappointment, though, is to compartmentalise our affection for something we love.115 While the vitriol around the 2016 Ghostbusters was disproportionate, it’s worth flagging that the same rhetoric of besmirched memories has been alluded to in discussions of other remakes, albeit minus the misogyny that hounded the remade Ghostbusters. In her review of Footloose (2011), the remake of the classic 1984 musical, Christy Lemire examines the negative response that the remake elicited: A totally anecdotal and unscientific poll of my friends who grew up during the era reveals that the nostalgia of Footloose is just too powerful. It’s part of our formative experience, and messing with it sullies the per­ ceived sanctity of our memories from that time – regardless of whether those memories jibe with reality.116 In Mark Perigard’s Boston Herald review of the 2017 made-for-TV remake of Dirty Dancing (1987), he makes a similar point: “Dirty Dancing is 30 years old. To celebrate, ABC has decided to stomp all over your memories of the beloved film.”117 Even if the memories of the earlier film don’t get sullied or stomped, the remake nonetheless likely reminds audiences of the original and, often­ times, prompts recall of how much better the earlier film was (even if, as Lemire notes, those idealized memories don’t jibe with reality). In Corliss’s aforementioned review of the remake Total Recall (2012), for example, he criticizes the film, claiming “It’s like the dinner-theater revival of a classic play, whose single asset is to remind those present how good the original was.”118 Arguably, not only can the remake remind viewers of a better prede­ cessor, but it can potentially elevate that earlier film in our collective imagi­ nary. Knöppler makes this suggestion, contending that: [O]nly the appearance of a copy can elevate a work to the status of the original. . . . While the previous film can certainly fall into obscurity once a new version appears, a remake is just as likely to achieve the

The nostalgic remake

109

opposite, as the mere existence of a remake confirms the value and canonicity of its predecessor.119 Knöppler illustrates this idea by spotlighting how the sci-fi film The Thing (1982) – itself a remake of The Thing From Another World (1951) – was reviewed unfavorably at the time of its initial release, but, in reviews of the 2011 remake, often mentioned was how much better the 1982 version was, in turn, “furthering its status as a canonical horror film. . . . It serves to finally counter the negative critical reception if only by making the 1982 film look better in comparison.”120 The idea of remakes making precursor films look better is repeated across a range of reviews, for example, in Ellie Miles’s Alloy discussion of bad remakes, she names the musical Annie (2014) and notes, “The original [Annie (1982)] wasn’t the best movie musical ever made, but the remake makes it look Oscar-worthy.”121 As discussed earlier, remaking can provide a reminder of an earlier film and help it live on in audience memories,122 in turn serving to counter accusations that a remake somehow obliterates its memory.123 While having memories besmirched is a downside of using media to timetravel, another cost to doing so is the provision of an inaccurate presenta­ tion of the past. In the introduction of this chapter I flagged that one of the concerns with remaking is the depiction of a more conservative past. In the following section this idea is expanded on.

A sanitized history The underpinning to the claim that nostalgic memories are “sepia-hued and perfect” is the notion that such renderings are not only likely to be historically incomplete or inaccurate but in fact are invariably idealized: they amplify the positive parts of the past and gloss over things like politics. Liz­ ardi makes this point in his discussion about television and nostalgia, flag­ ging the routine “avoidance of a radical, critical, and comparative past that would question the status quo.”124 In glossing over the past and gutting the politics, the idea of a “sim­ pler” time is presented: race, gender roles, sexuality – all of which have caused significant consternation both in earlier eras and, of course, to date – are downplayed in favor of a positive presentation of history that tugs at heartstrings and encourages longing for a past that seems familiar enough to appear “real” but that is infinitely preserved and can never really be returned to or questioned. In film theorist Salomé Aguilera Skvirsky’s discussion of the melodrama Far From Heaven (2002) – a remake of All That Heaven Allows (1955) – she argues that: “The nostalgia mode in film is just one more symptom of the postmodern erosion of history.”125 While this idea can be witnessed throughout culture, the notion of the erosion of history has specific relevance to screen media whereby a “history” is often presented but, because film and television are primarily entertainment rather than

110 The nostalgic remake educative media,126 the accuracy of a portrayal is often questionable. The relevance of this is compounded in the context of remakes where, on many occasions, filmmakers consciously eschew a revisionist interpretation – in favor of honoring the original127 – so as to fulfil the audience desires for nostalgia. Multiple tellings of the one, idealized story help to cement that story as truth in the popular imaginary. A good example of this is tellings of the story of the nineteenth-century King Mongkut – the fourth monarch of Siam – and the governess employed to tend to his children. This story has repeatedly been filmed for the screen, for example, in the films Anna and the King (1946), The King and I (1956), Anna and the King (1999) and the television series Anna and the King (1972). Each incarnation draws from the novel Anna and the King of Siam (1944) by Margaret Landon, which was a fic­ tionalized account of the life of the governess Anna Leonowens. The Thai government has long criticized the story and its screen adaptations for inac­ curacies; the 1999 film was banned from screening in Thailand altogether, based on “too many scenes which distort history and insult the king.”128 While the Landon book was a novel and thus the screen adaptations con­ tinued with the presentation of fiction, nonetheless, the repeated screen tellings of a story with some – if minimal – basis in reality can contribute to a distorted understanding of a historic event. While erasing or sanitizing history is done for a broad range of reasons, one explanation relevant to the themes of this chapter is the opportunity that remakes provide for audiences to escape into a romanticized fantasy of the past. Communications theorist Alex Bevan discusses this idea through reference to a range of film adaptations of Baby Boomer sitcoms – those made between 1946 and 1964, many of which were listed earlier – identifying that they present an idealized American history free from politics and the so-called culture wars: The films manipulate the boomer TV image of American suburbia, acknowledging its artifice and disconnect with historical reality from the perspective of the present day. Usually, this takes the form of a camp refram­ ing of the original that exaggerates the disjoint between the fictional sitcom family in the remake and historical accuracy.129 Bevan’s argument can be extended to many remakes and reboots of tel­ evision series whereby part of the pleasure found in consuming the first version – and the pleasure sought when seeking out the remake – is escap­ ism: arguably the audience doesn’t want historical accuracy but instead seeks escape into the joys associated with an aesthetic, simple-pleasures past that is free from contemporary anxieties. Another aspect of this is the remaking of material that helps to underscore the conservative good ol’ days ethos mentioned earlier. By presenting nostalgic screen content devoid of politics, such material conveys the erroneous impression that the past itself was somehow free from the culture wars so rampant today: i.e., that it was

The nostalgic remake

111

a more harmonious time. In James Morrison’s book Passport to Hollywood, for example, he discusses the aforementioned trend in the 1950s of remaking films from the 1930s, proposing that nostalgia for a “better” and, notably, more “innocent” bygone era was part of the motivation: To be sure, many of the remakes of the 1950s present themselves as nostalgic throwbacks to a more ‘innocent’ era – and, implicitly, a more lucrative market. For instance, ‘screwball’ comedies of the thirties such as It Happened One Night (Capra, 1934) and My Man Godfrey (La Cava, 1936) were remade in the 1950s, as respectively You Can’t Run Away From It (Dick Powell, 1956) and My Man Godfrey (Koster, 1957), in a transparent effort to reinvigorate a stagnant market by association with an earlier expansive one.130 Cultural theorist Jennifer Forrest similarly suggests that the driver behind these remakes was to remind audiences of a prewar time that was (re)imag­ ined as more unified: In the 1950s, Hollywood refashioned successful and less successful films from the 1930s in what was either an attempt both to woo people away from their television sets and to recreate the ‘homogenous’ audience of the prewar, or a way to buy some time until filmmakers figured out what the postwar, ‘fragmented’ audience wanted.131 It is, of course, no surprise that much modern nostalgic screen content is devoid of socio-political content. When these old television shows were first produced, they weren’t trying to encapsulate the zeitgeist in any meaning­ ful way; rather, they were just providing non-threatening light entertain­ ment. Given that at the time of their production such shows largely ignored the politics and social issues of the day, it’s no surprise that when the con­ tent gets revisited decades later such issues continue to be sidelined: if the sitcom wasn’t known for socio-political commentary then it’s completely predictable that such content would remain absent from an adaptation, in favor of a disproportionate focus on aesthetics. Resultantly, the new incar­ nation often has the camp feel that Bevan alludes to. Another way remakes are rendered conservative is simply through the conscious reproduction of media that depicts an idealized good ol’ days. In Hutcheon’s work on British remakes, for example, she observes: “It may be no accident, some argue, that ‘heritage cinema’ adaptations flourished in Thatcher’s aesthetically and ideologically conservative Britain.”132 Mar­ garet Thatcher was prime minister between 1979 and 1990, and during this period a range of “heritage” titles were made – often by the public broadcaster (thus taxpayer funded). A range of screen adaptations of Charles Dickens stories were made during this time as a nod to Britain’s strong literary heritage; examples include the mini-series Oliver Twist

112 The nostalgic remake (1985), first filmed in the UK in 1948; The Pickwick Papers (1985), first filmed in 1901 in the UK; David Copperfield (1986), first filmed in 1911; Little Dorrit (1987), first filmed in the US in 1913 and A Tale of Two Cities (1989), first filmed in 1935 in the US. By producing screen adaptations of classic British literature, a sense of national identity is promoted,133 and a notion of the past as better, more cohesive and imbued with stronger values is promoted. Earlier in this chapter I discussed material from the 80s revisited in the 2000s and the 90s remade in the 2010s, alluding to an approximately onegeneration turnaround between productions. Further, I listed a range of television shows that were remade as films and/or rebooted as a series well over a decade later. While there are, as discussed, examples where a decade or more separates productions, there are also many examples that speed up the time between production and reproduction, thus alluding to a situation of permanent nostalgia as explored in the next section.

Permanent nostalgia Syndication, streaming and constant remaking and rebooting conveys the impression that we are living in a kind of permanent nostalgia: that we are always experiencing our pop culture past because we are always a mere click away from revisiting it. Steven Zeitchik explores this in his Los Angeles Times article about the dominance of nostalgia in contemporary popular culture: Technology has shrunk the distance between past and present in many ways. There’s the Spotify song that easily transports you to a teenage crush. Or that streaming service that has kept alive the likes of Friends [1994–2004] and Full House, in the latter case prompting its reboot.134 Film theorists Anna Westerstål Stenport and Garrett Traylor theorize this phenomena as the “increasingly rapid cultural half-life of ideas”135: that through the speeding up of reproduction, a cultural product no longer has the time or space to complete the process of making a mark on culture and then being pined for, i.e., its life as a cultural artefact has been truncated: [W]e argue that an accelerating half-life of ideas – indicating the rate of forgetting, not pertaining to the quality of ideas – is a defining aspect of Western modernity, and therefore has implications extending far out­ side the world of books, including phenomena such as film remakes.136 While, as observed throughout this chapter, since the beginning of cinema there have been rapid-fire reproductions of silent films as talkies and for­ eign films remade as US transnational productions, a case can be made that

The nostalgic remake

113

the half-life idea has become increasingly relevant in the twentieth-first cen­ tury. Historically, it was once considered the norm for a generation to pass between productions; film theorist Angela Ndalianis, for example, discusses the idea of a 20-year time point “at which things are often remade [and] reflects the handing of the generational baton.”137 In more recent years, theorists have suggested that this spacing is shrinking. Stenport and Traylor point to the Swedish film Män som hatar kvinnor (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) (2009) and its US remake, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011) as illustration: The release and distribution history of the films support the thesis of an accelerated half-life of ideas. [Niels Arden] Oplev’s The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (YellowBird Productions, Nordisk) was released in theat­ ers in Sweden on February 27, 2009 (the DVD in late August 2009), and in US theaters on March 19 the following year, distributed by independ­ ent foreign film distributor Music Box (DVD released July 6, 2010). Media buzz about the film included plans for a US remake, which was underway even before the film had opened in Sweden.138 As the authors conclude, “each additional version is released more quickly and is in circulation for a shorter length of time.”139 This half-life concept, in fact, has also made its way into more popular commentary pieces. In his review of the 2019 live-action Aladdin, Chris Nashawaty in Entertainment Weekly references this idea, observing: “The ever-quickening half-life of pop culture has gotten so short that we’ve now officially entered the era of diminishing returns. It’s the new normal.”140 Film critic A.A. Dowd also discusses the half-life idea in his review of Secret in their Eyes (2015), the US remake of the Argentinian film El secreto de sus ojos (The Secret in Their Eyes) (2009): “When it comes to remaking foreign films for American audiences, there’s apparently no such thing as ‘too soon.’ ”141 For Dowd, seemingly remaking a film that is not particularly old only adds to its unjustifiableness. A different aspect of the half-life idea – and something relevant to the notion of permanent nostalgia – is the notion of “context collapse,” whereby, as technology theorist Hanne Detel explains: “words and actions which were intended for a certain context can easily be made persistently visible to a potentially large audience.”142 While this might have also occurred in the early days of television when a series that was out of pro­ duction went into syndication and was potentially viewed alongside new content, the Internet has expanded this exponentially, with audiences able to constantly dip in and out of over one hundred years of screen content. In an age of streaming and Nick at Nite and the films of Georges Méliès and the Lumiere brothers available on YouTube, we’re living in our own pop culture pastiche and consuming media from all eras, all of the time, often completely out of its social, political or even cultural context, thus adding another element of confusion as to what any viewer’s pop culture past really

114 The nostalgic remake looks like (and thus leading to tomorrow’s adults becoming nostalgic about very similar material as their parents). Returning to Stenport and Taylor’s discussion of the Dragon Tattoo films, unquestionably economics are at play here with filmmakers wanting to quickly cash in on, for example, the enormous popularity of the Stieg Larr­ son novel that the films were based on, but other factors are also at play. The internet means that nowadays everybody finds out about new releases at the same time, no matter where on earth the material is produced. Whereas a French film might have once been released in France and taken years for most American audiences to hear about it – and thus, when the US version arrived, it seemed entirely new – this is no longer the case. Equally, as noted, the time between the cinema release and other kinds of distribu­ tion is shrinking: the existence of streaming services as well as file-sharing and other digital downloading services mean audiences no longer need to hope for international distribution nor wait for a DVD release – they are able to access international content much more quickly. This also gives American filmmakers information about popular stories and helps to deter­ mine viable projects for English-language reproduction (discussed further in Chapter 4). Just as the time between the Swedish and US versions of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo was brief so too is the time between the culmination of a series and speculation about a reboot. In Charles Stockdale and Shahnaz Mahmud’s discussion on television reboots, they note that “Canceled shows are frequently brought back to air for a number of reasons, including audi­ ence demand or corporate belief that there is more money to be made on network-owned intellectual property.”143 The fact that old episodes of these series are in widespread circulation helps to fuel both audience demand for more and the belief that there’s money to be made from further pro­ duction, hence why the time between a series finale and a reboot is, in many examples, shrinking and why it’s now always premature to consider any series truly “finished.” Earlier I discussed the 2016 sex-swapped Ghostbusters; already in production while writing this book is another version of the 1984 film. As illustrated by the US Dragon Tattoo example, this phenomenon of quick reproduction is also evidenced through the quick turnaround time between foreign films and their US transnational reproductions (explored further in Chapter 4). The lag time for example, between 2000s-era Asian horror films and their stateside remakes illustrates this particularly well, with five years or fewer separating the productions: • The Japanese film Kairo (Pulse) (2001) remade in the US as Pulse in 2006. • The aforementioned Japanese film Ju-On (The Grudge) (2002) remade in the US as The Grudge in 2004.

The nostalgic remake

115

• The Japanese film Honogurai mizu no soko kara (Dark Water) (2002) remade in the US as Dark Water in 2005. • The Korean film Geoul sokeuro (Into the Mirror) (2003) remade in the US as Mirrors in 2008. • The Japanese film Chakushin ari (One Missed Call) (2003) remade in the US as One Missed Call in 2008. • The Thai film Shutter (2004) remade in the US as Shutter in 2008. • The Filipino film Sigaw (The Echo) (2004) remade in the US as The Echo in 2008. Just as the US version of Girl With The Dragon Tattoo cashed in on Larsson’s worldwide bestselling novel, these US remakes quickly seized on the trend in Asian horror144 (explored further in Chapter 6). To take advantage of such a trend, US studios can’t afford to wait a generation but rather need to reproduce – and thus capitalize – as quickly as possible. While Asian hor­ ror is an example of a geographic and genre trend, more broadly, there is a wide range of US transnational productions of international content that transpires within five years. The aforementioned Swedish drama Inter­ mezzo (1936) and its US remake (1939) is an early example, two more mod­ ern examples also mentioned in this chapter include Mon père, ce héros (My Father the Hero) (1991) remade in the US as My Father the Hero in 1994 and the Spanish drama Abre los ojos (Open Your Eyes) (1997) remade in the US in 2001 as Vanilla Sky. Others include: • The British drama Gaslight (1940) remade in the US in 1944. • The Argentinian romcom Los martes, orquídeas (On Tuesdays: Orchids) (1941) remade in the US as the musical You Were Never Lovelier in 1942. • The French comedy La Totale! (1991) remade in the US as the action film True Lies in 1994. • The French comedy Neuf mois (Nine Months) (1994) remade in the US as Nine Months in 1995. • The Argentinian crime-drama Nueve reinas (Nine Queens) (2000) remade in the US as Criminal in 2004. • The Hong Kong crime-drama Mou gaan dou (Infernal Affairs) (2002) remade in the US as The Departed in 2006. • The Dutch drama Interview (2003) remade in the US in 2007. • The Spanish horror film [Rec] (2007) remade in the US as Quarantine in 2008. • The Israeli thriller Ha-Hov (The Debt) (2007) remade in the US as The Debt in 2008. • The Indian thriller A Wednesday! (2008) remade in the US as A Common Man in 2013. • The Mexican horror Somos lo que hay (We Are What We Are) (2010) remade in the US as We Are What We Are in 2013.

116 The nostalgic remake A range of transnational autoremakes – whereby a director remakes their own foreign film in the US – also illustrates this, with many such reproduc­ tions again happening within five years: • Francis Veber’s French comedy-crime drama French film Les Fugitifs (The Fugitives) (1986) remade as Three Fugitives in 1989. • John Woo’s Hong Kong action-drama Zong heng si hai (Once a Thief) (1991) remade as Once a Thief in 1996. • Ole Bornedal’s Dutch thriller Nattevagten (Nightwatch) (1994) remade as Nightwatch in 1997. • Peter Ho-Sun Chan’s Hong Kong romance Tian mi mi (Comrades: Almost a Love Story) (1996) remade as The Love Letter in 1999. • Géla Babluani’s French crime-drama 13 Tzameti (2005) remade as 13 in 2010. • Lisa Azuelos’s French romcom Lol (2008) remade in the US as LOL in 2012. • Ken Scott’s French-language Canadian comedy-drama Starbuck (2011) remade as Delivery Man in 2013. • George Sluizer’s Dutch thriller Spoorloos (The Vanishing) (1993) remade as The Vanishing in 1998. • Sebastián Lelio’s Chilean drama Gloria (2013) remade in the US as Glo­ ria Bell in 2018. While these are all film examples, the same thing can be witnessed in fastturnaround US adaptations of international television productions. Jeff Saporito writing for ScreenPrism discusses this as related to US adaptations of content from countries like England, oftentimes while the originary series is still in production: The primary reason for an American network’s interest in doing their own take on English material is that the shows are popular in Britain, and they want to capitalize on something with a proven history. Yet, most invariably fail when modified for stateside viewing. It all leads to one greater question – why bother? British shows are already Englishspeaking programs, and adaptations are usually done while the original series is still fresh and current in society. So what’s the point?145 While the “point” of such productions is moot, such remaking is a regu­ lar occurrence. While some examples have already been discussed in this chapter – for example Broadchurch (2013–2017)/Gracepoint (2014); Wilfred (2007–2010/2011–2014); The Slap (2011/2015) – there is a range of other such US adaptations of international productions made in a five-year or less turnaround: • The British sitcom Steptoe and Son (1962–1974) remade in the US as Sanford and Son (1972–1977).

The nostalgic remake

117

• The British sitcom Till Death Us Do Part (1965–1975) remade in the US as All in the Family (1971–1979). • The Australian comedy-drama series Number 96 (1972–1977) remade in the US (1980–1981). • The British sitcom Man About the House (1973–1976) remade in the US as Three’s Company (1976–1984). • The British sitcom Keep it in the Family (1980–1983) remade in the US as Too Close for Comfort (1980–1987). • The Japanese children’s action series Kyôryû sentai Jûrenjâ (Super Sen­ tai Zyuranger) (1992–1993) remade in the US as Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (1993–1999). • The British sitcom Men Behaving Badly (1992–2014) remade in the US (1996–1997). • The British drama series Queer as Folk (1999–2000) remade in the US (2000–2005). • The Columbian sitcom Yo soy Betty, la fea (I Am Betty, the Ugly Girl) (1999– 2001) remade in the US as Ugly Betty (2006–2010). • The British sitcom The Office (2001–2003) remade in the US (2005–2013). • The Australian sitcom Kath and Kim (2002–2007) remade in the US (2008–2009). • The British romcom series Coupling (2000–2004) remade in the US (2003). • The British crime-comedy series Blackpool (2004) remade in the US as Viva Laughlin (2007). • The British crime-comedy series Shameless (2004–2013) remade in the US (2011–). • The Argentinian crime-drama Mujeres Asesinas (Killer Women) (2005–) remade in the US as Killer Women (2014). • The Israeli drama BeTipul (In Therapy) (2005–2008) remade in the US as In Treatment (2008–2010). • The New Zealand crime-comedy Outrageous Fortune (2005–2010) remade in the US as Scoundrels (2010). • The Swedish crime-drama Wallander (2005–2014) remade in the US with the same title (2008–2016). • The British sci-fi mini-series Eleventh Hour (2006) remade in the US (2008). • The British mystery series Life on Mars (2006–2007) remade in the US (2008–2009). • The British drama series Skins (2007–2013) remade in the US (2011). • The Danish crime-drama series Forbrydelsen (The Killing) (2007–2012) remade as The Killing (2011–2014). • The British sci-fi series Being Human (2008–2013) remade in the US (2011–2014) • The British teen-series The Inbetweeners (2008–2010) remade in the US (2012)

118 The nostalgic remake • The Israeli drama Hatufim (Prisoners of War) (2009–2012) remade in the US as Homeland (2011–). • The Australian legal-drama Rake (2010–2018) remade in the US (2014) • The Danish crime-drama Den som dræber (Those Who Kill) (2011–) remade as Those Who Kill (2014). • The Swedish crime-drama Bron/Broen (The Bridge) (2011–2018) remade as The Bridge (2013–2013) • The Spanish period-drama series Gran Hotel (2011–2013) remade in the US as Grand Hotel (2019–). • The Swedish sci-fi series Äkta människor (Real Humans) (2012–2014) remade in the US as Humans (2015–2018). • The French fantasy-horror series Les Revenants (The Returned) (2012– 2015) remade in the US (2015). • The Israeli drama series Bnei Aruba (Hostages) (2013–2016) remade in the US as Hostages (2013–2014). • The Colombian teen-series Yo Soy Franky (2015–2016) remade in the US as I am Frankie (2017–). • The Korean drama series Geurin Meseu (Good Doctor) (2013) remade in the US as The Good Doctor (2017–). • The Belgian drama Cordon (2014–) remade in the US as Containment (2016) • The Norwegian teen series Skam (Shame) (2015–2017) remade in the US in 2018-. While US transnational remakes are the focus of Chapter 4, a point needs to be made here about international content being more prone to hasty American reproduction than US remakes of US media. For many reasons examined in Chapter 4, international content is unlikely to be widely seen in the US. Remaking it for an English-speaking audience, therefore, is essen­ tial for widespread viewership. To achieve this, rapid-fire remake makes sense, particularly if seizing on a literary or cultural trend is relevant (dis­ cussed further in Chapter 6). In the case of US/US re-adaptations, while, as discussed earlier, there is reason to believe that the time between produc­ tions may be shrinking, such reproductions invariably target an audience already familiar with a story. Permitting some space between incarnations, therefore, might be advantageous – to give audiences enough time to miss a story and its characters, something substantially less of a concern with inter­ national reproduction given that stateside audiences likely never saw the precursor material. While in this section I have discussed US remakes of international lan­ guage content, it should be flagged that this half-life idea is also identifi­ able in US remakes of local media. Dowd presents Cabin Fever (2016) – the remake of the 2002 horror film – as a US/US example and laments the short amount of time between the two releases: [F]or sheer pointlessness, this week’s Cabin Fever redo really takes the rotting cake. Eli Roth’s [2002] gross-out debut, about a group of

The nostalgic remake

119

college kids ravaged by a flesh-eating virus, is only about a decade and a half old. Fourteen years, in fact, is a substantial gap between incarnations if com­ pared to examples like the aforementioned Hulk (2003) remade as The Incredible Hulk (2008). While US/US remakes with a five-year turnaround or less are rare, a few examples exist – both historic and more recent instances: • The silent drama The Great Divide (1925) remade – by the same director (Reginald Barker) – as a talkie in 1929. • The silent comedy Miss Bluebird (1925) remade – by the same director (Frank Tuttle) – as the talkie Her Wedding Night (1930) • The silent drama Classified (1925) remade as the talkie Hard to Get in 1929. • The silent drama Déclassée (1925) remade as the talkie Her Private Life in 1929. • Laurel and Hardy’s silent comedy Duck Soup (1927) remade as the talkie Another Fine Mess in 1930. • Howard Hawks’s silent comedy A Girl in Every Port (1928) remade as the talkie Goldie in 1931. • The silent romance The Dove (1927) remade as the musical Girl of Rio in 1932. • The silent crime-drama The Cat and the Canary (1927) remade as the talkie The Cat Creeps in 1930. • The horror film Frankenstein (1931) remade as Bride of Frankenstein in 1935. • The mystery A Kiss Before the Mirror (1933) remade as Wives Under Suspi­ cion in 1938. • The drama House of Strangers (1949) remade as the Western Broken Lance in 1954. • The film-noir The Maltese Falcon (1931) remade as the comedy Satan Met a Lady in 1936. • The film-noir Time to Kill (1942) remade as The Brasher Doubloon (1947). • The crime-drama The Asphalt Jungle (1949) remade as the Western Badlanders (1958), and then, five years later, remade a second time as the caper film Cairo in 1963. • The crime-drama Jackson County Jail (1976) remade as the television movie Outside Chance in 1978. • The crime-drama Harper (1966) remade as the Blaxploitation film Shaft in 1971. • The British crime-drama Get Carter (1971) remade as the Blaxploitation film Hit Man in 1972. • The horror film The Exorcist (1973) remade as the Blaxploitation film Abby in 1974. • The erotic-drama Fifty Shades of Grey (2015) remade as the parody Fifty Shades of Black in 2016.

120 The nostalgic remake • While Louisa May Alcott’s novel Little Women (1868) has been adapted many times since 1917, there are examples of this happening in close succession: in 2017 for example, there was a mini-series, in 2018 a Christian feature-length film, and in 2019 an all-star blockbuster. While such examples can be construed as illustrating the half-life idea, these titles also point to other trends. In Chapter 1, I noted the frequency of silent films being remade once sound technology became available, thus demonstrating an eagerness on the part of studios and filmmakers to test – and take advantage of – new technologies. This is far more likely to be an explanation for the silent remakes quickly remade as sound features than a preoccupation with nostalgia. American media being remade by American studios within five years remains a relatively rare practice. That said, with studios needing to popu­ late ever more platforms with fresh material (Chapter 2), combined with their desire to quickly seize on trends (Chapter 6), waiting for a full genera­ tion to pass before reproduction seems increasingly less likely, particularly for popular and malleable stories. While a five-year turnaround might be too quick for a new incarnation, in many cases – particularly for popular stories – twenty years might be too long and seem to studios like a wasted opportunity. While I have spent this chapter discussing the pleasures (and pains) of nostalgia, it’s also important to acknowledge that a remake doesn’t always have to be nostalgic. In the final section of this chapter, I examine occasions when a remake consciously avoids allusions to the past.

Eschewing the nostalgia Despite the inextricable link between nostalgia and remaking, there are several situations whereby a filmmaker will consciously avoid nostalgic pleas. In Eberwein’s aforementioned taxonomy, he discusses remakes whose “status is denied by the director,” nominating the thriller Blow-Up (1966) and its apparent remake, The Conversation (1974), as illustration.146 In Chapter 2 I identified a range of illustrations of this category through films criticized in reviews with labels like unofficial and thinly disguised. For remakes where a concerted effort is made to distance a new film from its predecessor – perhaps with a change of name or a new setting – a director will go to pains to avoid presenting any links between films (elsewhere, for example, I discuss that in some instances remake personnel will go so far as to claim to have never even seen a predecessor).147 In such examples, nostal­ gia triggers are likely avoided so that audience recall of originary material is limited. A connected explanation for eschewing nostalgia is when a new produc­ tion changes genre and thus presents itself as a new film – or at least a reim­ agined film – and thus wants to be assessed of its own accord. An example of

The nostalgic remake

121

this is The Seven Samurai mentioned earlier being remade as a Western. The Seven Samurai was not credited in the production of The Magnificent Seven, in turn concealing its status as a remake and also dodging royalty payments (Chapter 2). While genre-swap remakes are discussed further in Chapter 5, it’s important to point to a few examples to illustrate why nostalgia might be eschewed. When the sci-fi thriller The Stepford Wives (1975) was remade in 2004, for example, it became a satire. When Hitchcock’s thriller Strangers on a Train (1951) was remade as Throw Momma From the Train (1987), it became a comedy. In these examples, the remake was not primarily produced to rekindle audience memories of the earlier title but rather attempted to do something new and creative using a previously successful premise. In such examples, there are no – or few – Easter eggs, and thus the remake operates as a standalone film, not actively encouraging comparison in the ways that other remakes often do. Another explanation for eschewed nostalgia is when a filmmaker actu­ ally tries to make a modern or postmodern film. In film theorist Fernando Canet’s discussion of Psycho (1998) – the remake of Hitchcock’s 1960 film – he argues, “Van Sant’s version is not a nostalgia film because recalling cin­ ematic forms of the past is not one of its main intentions.”148 This argument is interesting in that the 1998 Psycho is, in fact, a near scene-for-scene remake of the original and therefore a counter assertion to Canet’s would be that every scene of the remake in fact is about nostalgia. The point that Canet makes however – and one applicable to a range of remakes dubbed as post­ modern149 – is that such films don’t center primarily on helping audiences to time-travel or to recall positive thoughts about the earlier film, rather, they attempt to do something modern and different with the originary material: I discuss elsewhere, for example, how films like Psycho, as well as the afore­ mentioned The Stepford Wives (2004), each use modern approaches to topics like sex and sexuality to distance the material from the original to give it contemporary relevance.150 This chapter has focused on nostalgia as a driver behind remake produc­ tion, as well as providing an impetus for audience consumption of such material. In Chapter 4 the discussion focuses on Americanized remakes whereby the production motives center on producing a film deemed more palatable to American audiences and American appetites.

Notes 1 Boym, 2001, xiv. 2 Rosewarne, 2018a, 94. 3 “The idea of the ‘nostalgia film’ – as a distinct type of movie – comes from cul­ tural theorist Frederic Jameson, who uses the term to discuss films like American Graffiti (1973) set in the 1950s, or Chinatown (1974) set in the 1930s. Jameson identifies that rather than seeing these films as merely being set in the aesthetic past, that they in fact constitute a new type of genre marked by their use of pas­ tiche” (Rosewarne, 2018a, 96).

122 The nostalgic remake 4 In his discussion on nostalgia and television, media theorist Ryan Lizardi notes, “Once recalled, events that occurred in the past become idealized and exagger­ ated due to their distanced nature” (Lizardi, 2014, 39). Such an idea was at the center of a satirical news report published on The Onion (“Man Worried New ‘Jumanji’ Movie Going to Ruin Memory of Mediocre Afternoon in 1995”, 2017). 5 Film theorist Laura Mee notes “For many critics and audiences (fans, especially), remaking a classic film is a step too far, a sacrilegious act which disrespects the iconic status of the original” (Mee, 2017, 201). 6 Rosewarne, 2019a.

7 Druxman, 1975, 24.

8 In Humphries, 2019.

9 Communications theorist Christina Lee identifies cinema as the perfect vehicle

for nostalgia given its time-travel machine ability to collapse time, stretch time and manipulate it (Lee, 2012). 10 Rosewarne, 2013, 146. 11 As film theorist Daniel Varndell reminds us, “one cannot watch a film for the first time, twice” (Varndell, 2014, 5). 12 In Stevens, 2017, 26. 13 In Boboltz, 2017. 14 This idea is nicely encapsulated in a tweet sent by @Sferreira_22 on June 22, 2019. The text read: “Mi abuela me llevó a ver toy story 1,2 y 3. Me tocaba a mi.” The translation: “My grandma took me to see Toy Story 1, 2 and 3. It was my turn,” accompanied by a photo of the author and his grandma going to see the new film. 15 Lizardi, 2017, 98–99. 16 Elsewhere I examine the ways that sex and sexuality are used to modernize remakes to enable them to appeal to a new generation of viewers (Rosewarne, 2019a). 17 Film theorist Kim Newman elaborates on this point: “Typical of the faint air of desperation that surrounds major studio product of the 1950s are Curtis Bern­ hardt’s remake of The Merry Widow (1952) with Lana Turner, Michael Curtiz’s solemn spectacle The Egyptian (1954), Selznick’s troubled super-production of A Farewell to Arms (1957), or such all-star oddities as The Story of Mankind (1957). The studios thought these were the films that would recapture the glory days of the 1930s” (Newman, 1996, 511). 18 Loock, 2016, 278. 19 Woodyatt, 2019. 20 Carpenter, 2018. 21 Andreeva, 2019. 22 Chuba, 2018. 23 Desta, 2018. 24 Frederick, 2018. 25 Frederick, 2018. 26 Corliss, 2005. 27 In fact, the 2019 announcement of the reboot of the youth-oriented series Lizzie McGuire (2001–2004) heralds this (Singh, 2019). 28 Garrido and Davidson, 2019; Routledge, 2016; Booker, 2007. 29 Verevis, 2006, 20. 30 Francis Jr., 2013, 24. 31 Eberwein, 1998, 30. 32 Miles Mander, for example, played Gordon in Alfred Hitchcock’s Murder! (1930) and reprised the role for the German-language production Mary (1931), produced simultaneously. This happens in a range of other examples. Márta Eggerth played Steffi in the German musical Es war einmal ein Walzer (Where is This Lady?) (1932) while performing in the same role, in the same year, in the

The nostalgic remake

33 34 35

36

37 38

39 40 41 42 43

44 45 46 47 48

49

123

British version. Barry Norton did this on three occasions, appearing as Diaz in the American film Storm Over the Andes (1935), as well as in the Spanish language version Alas sobre El Chaco (Storm Over the Andes), that same year. Norton also played Roberto in the English and Spanish versions of The Sea Fiend/El diablo del Mar (1935) and Karl in Captain Calamity/El Capitan Tormenta (1936). Marlene Dietrich and Emil Jannings also starred in English and German versions of Der blaue Engel (The Blue Angel) (1930) filmed concurrently. Andreeva, 2019. Singh, 2019. Joanna Barnes playing gold-digger Vicki in the 1961 The Parent Trap and then Aunt Vicki, the aunt of the remake’s new gold-digger in the 1998 remake is such an example. Ditto Richard Roundtree as Shaft in the 1971 Shaft and then as Uncle Shaft in the 2000 and 2019 remake. As defined by Jon Lachonis and Amy Johnston in their book on the television series Lost (2004–2010): an Easter egg is “exactly what it sounds like, a treat that has been hidden by the ‘Easter Bunny’. . . . For pop culture aficionados, finding one is just as exciting as finding one of those plastic eggs under the couch filled with money or chocolate” (Lachonis and Johnston, 2008. n.p). Campbell, 2015. A different kind of posthumous cameo was apparent when the supernatural tel­ evision series Kolchak: The Night Stalker (1974–1975) was remade as Night Stalker (2005–2006). In the first series, Darren McGavin played the title character. When the series was remade, McGavin was digitally inserted into the pilot epi­ sode, thus giving the deceased actor a “digital cameo” (Spotnitz, 2005). Kit, 2019. Harries, 2000, 27. Kit, 2019. Loock, 2012, 138. Film theorist Myoungsook Park argues “When the director of the original is allowed to direct the remake, the remake practice is predominantly considered a cinematic form of respect, even by fans dedicated to the superiority of the original. It virtually eliminates hostile responses” (Park, 2009, 116–117). Lindner, 2012, 120. In Priggé, 2004, 171. In “Gene Wilder slams Chocolate Factory remake as ‘an insult’ ”, 2013. In Johnson, 2009b. The action-drama The Crow (1994) was directed by Alex Proyas. Remakes of the film have been proposed for several years, something Proyas has stated his oppo­ sition to: “I believe it is a special case where Hollywood should just let it remain a testament to [Brandon Lee’s] immense talent and ultimate sacrifice – and not have others re-write that story or add to it” (in Ingram, 2017). The Swedish vam­ pire film Låt den rätte komma (Let the Right One in) (2008) was remade in the US as Let Me In (2010). The director of the 2008 film, Tomas Alfredson, criticized the production of the remake, claiming, “if one should remake a film, it’s because the original is bad, and I don’t think mine is” (in Dixon and Foster, 2011, 65). The horror film Suspiria (1977) was directed by Dario Argento. In 2018 the film was remade and Argento expressed his displeasure: “It did not excite me, it betrayed the spirit of the original film: there is no fear, there is no music. The film has not satisfied me so much” (in Jones, 2019). Other kinds of personnel have also expressed similar criticism. Linda Woolverton, for example, who wrote the animated Beauty and the Beast (1991), was critical of the 2017 live-action remake: “I wasn’t totally thrilled with The Beauty and the Beast remake because I didn’t think it was exactly true to the mythology of the storytelling. And I’m not happy that I don’t get to participate. Who would be?” (in Holmes, 2018). In Priggé, 2004, 171.

124 The nostalgic remake 50 In Bennett, 2014, 85. 51 Brustein, 1975. 52 In Priggé, 2004, 171. 53 Wloszczyna, 2007. 54 Couch, 2017; Dodds, 2017. 55 Francis Jr., 2013, 24. 56 Lang and Malkin, 2018. 57 Travers, 2018a. 58 Satan Met a Lady (1936), for example, was described as “an inferior remake of The Maltese Falcon (1931) (“Satan Met a Lady”, 1935); The Lost World (1960) as an “inferior remake” of the 1925 film (Kinnard, 1988, 13) and Criminal (2004), the remake of the Argentinian film Nueve reinas (Nine Queens) (2000), as having been “given the inferior-remake treatment” (Bradshaw, 2016). The Lion King (2019), the remake of the 1994 film, has also been described as an “inferior clone” (James, 2019) and an “inferior version” (Hewitt, 2019). 59 Tucker, 2016. 60 Alfie Darling (1975), for example – a remake of Alfie (1966) – was described as “a crude and vulgar rip-off with no subtlety and no point” (Nowlan and Wright Nowlan, 1989, 15); Ben-Hur (2016) as a “pointless remake” of the 1959 film (Smith, 2017) and Psycho (1998), the remake of the 1960 film, as “a pointless failure” (Canet, 2018, 21). 61 Eggert, 2017. 62 Vicari, 2018. 63 Georgakas, 1998, 77. 64 Jenkins and Palmer, 1990; Lowing, 1990. 65 Cling, 1991; Pearce, 1991. 66 “Sean Connery dismounts in film for half a million dollars”, 1991. 67 Rosewarne, 2019a. 68 Lacey, 2007. 69 Plasketes, 2016, 142. 70 Kevin Maher connects remakes to food, criticizing them in The Times as “just comfort-food culture” (Maher, 2012). 71 Amanda Ann Klein and R. Barton Palmer, for example, identify that “most of the texts that fit under the broad umbrella of multiplicities, such as film sequels and cycles, television remakes and spin-offs, are most frequently discussed as ‘guilty pleasures’ ” (Klein and Palmer, 2016, 12). 72 Karmani, 2016. 73 Bojalad, 2017. 74 Wren, 2016, 22. 75 Suderman, 2016. 76 Corliss, 2005. 77 Corliss, 2012. 78 Milberg, 1990, 27. 79 Brustein, 1975. 80 Miller, 2015. 81 Kolker, 1998, 36. 82 Lukas and Marmysz, 2009a; Francis Jr., 2013; Wee, 2016; Roche, 2014; Knöppler, 2017. 83 Johnson, 2009a. 84 Knöppler, 2017, 51. 85 Robinson, 2009, 12. 86 Knöppler, 2017, 135. 87 Hutcheon and O’Flynn, 2013, 91. 88 Hutcheon and O’Flynn, 2013, 15. 89 Kinzel, 2015, 115.

The nostalgic remake 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113

114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122

123 124

125

Rosewarne, 2018a.

Ellis, 1982, 4–5.

Zanger, 2006, 9.

In Humphries, 2019.

Druxman, 1975, 50.

Druxman, 1975, 57.

Druxman, 1975, 20.

Rosewarne, 2019a.

Tatspaugh, 2007; Davies, 2016.

Suderman, 2016.

Suderman, 2016 Rosewarne, 2016b. In Ringel, 1999. Horton and McDougal, 1998, 6. Rosewarne, 2019a. Herbert, 2017, 6. Loock, 2016, 290. Biguenet, 1998, 138. Shoard, 2016. In Gaudiosi, 2016. Mee, 2017, 202. Mee, 2017, 202. In George, 2016. The remake director, Paul Feig, facetiously responded to these claims, “It’s so dramatic. Honestly, the only way I could ruin your childhood is if I got into a time machine and went back and made you an orphan” (in Bui, 2016). Several critics similarly focused on the illogical nature of the claim. In Gizmodo for example, Matt Novak argues, “either these people discovered a way to travel back to the 1980s . . . or they don’t understand how the simple progression of time works . . . I am a fully grown man now. As such, I understand that my child­ hood was my childhood, and my adulthood is my adulthood (for better and for worse). Movies that come out during my adulthood have no bearing on my childhood unless someone finds a time portal to chuck VHS tapes through” (Novak, 2016). Johnny Brayson also explores this in Bustle, noting: “Might as well get this out of the way. In no way does the new Ghostbusters erase the origi­ nal from my memory, or from existence. I can still watch it whenever I want, and I can still have the nostalgia of my childhood wash over me when I do” (Brayson, 2016). Donoughue, 2019. Bailey, 2017. Lemire, 2011. Perigard, 2017. Corliss, 2012. Knöppler, 2017, 49–50. Knöppler, 2017, 84. Miles, 2017. Hutcheon, for examples, argues “Adaptation is not vampiric: it does not draw the life-blood from its source and leave it dying or dead, nor is it paler than the adapted work. It may, on the contrary, keep the prior work alive, giving it an afterlife it would never have had otherwise” (Hutcheon and O’Flynn, 2013, 179). Film theorist Leo Braudy, for example, contends that “the remade film is less frequently a homage or revival than an effort to supplant its predecessor entirely” (Braudy, 1998, 327). Lizardi, 2014, 46.

126 The nostalgic remake 125 Skvirsky, 2008, 91. 126 Rosewarne, 2019b. 127 It Happened One Christmas (1977) is a sex-swap remake of It’s a Wonderful Life (1946). Marlo Thomas starred in the remake and served as a producer and apparently didn’t want the remake to be revisionist; something Ronald Scheer discusses in his analysis of the film: “Marlo Thomas’ refusal, as producer, to turn the story into a feminist parable also shows a desire to remain faithful to [Frank] Capra’s vision” (Scheer, 1980, 32). 128 Aglionby, 1999. 129 Bevan, 2013, 306. 130 Morrison, 1998, 150. 131 Forrest, 2002b, 170. 132 Hutcheon and O’Flynn, 2013, 143–144. 133 Chapman, 2014. 134 Zeitchik, 2016. 135 Stenport and Traylor, 2015, 74. 136 Stenport and Traylor, 2015, 78. 137 In “Turtles repowered”, 2007. 138 Stenport and Traylor, 2015, 79. 139 Stenport and Traylor, 2015, 80. 140 Nashawaty, 2019. 141 Dowd, 2015. 142 Detel, 2013, 79. 143 Stockdale and Mahmud, 2018. 144 Thompson, 2017; Wee, 2016. 145 Saporito, 2016. 146 Eberwein, 1998, 28–30. 147 Rosewarne, 2019a. 148 Canet, 2018, 22. 149 Rosewarne, 2019a. 150 Rosewarne, 2019a.

4

The Americanized remake

“It’s the word that we all dread when we hear about a Hollywood remake of a wildly successful foreign-language property: ‘Americanized.’ ”1 This was the opening sentence of Hoai-Train Bui’s SlashFilm article about a proposed US adaptation of the Japanese animation Kimi no na wa (Your Name) (2016). Commentary like Bui’s, along with the often-deployed phrase “yet another American remake”2 and scathing rebukes like “pathetic Americanization”3 reflect the widespread criticism of US reproductions of international con­ tent. Considered as a cliché at best and as evidence of cultural imperialism at worst, American remakes are as ubiquitous as condemnations of them. Commonly termed transnational remakes, film theorist Daniel Herbert defines such films as those “made in one national or regional context and then remade in another.”4 This chapter focuses on American transnational remakes, with the term encompassing US remakes of content made in other languages and also in other places. Also included under the transnational remake label are American remakes of non-American English language content: the British crime-drama Broadchurch (2013–2017) remade in the US as Gracepoint (2014) is such an example. Such productions are some­ times termed transatlantic remakes and, like Gracepoint – along with many examples listed in Chapter 3 – are often made while the original series is still in production. Transnational remakes provide insight into audience appetites, Holly­ wood economics and deeply entrenched cultural stereotypes about Amer­ ica, American filmmaking and also American audiences. I begin this chapter with an examination of what it means to Americanize a remake and present several reasons for the proliferation of such productions. While many of the economic drivers are examined in Chapter 2, the motives focused on in this chapter include the perceived art/commerce divide thought to distinguish American from world media, as well as efforts to expand the audience and to neutralize the unfamiliar. I problematize the notion of Americanization in the context of contemporary global and notably globalized filmmaking and end with a discussion of transnational remakes produced by countries other than the US.

128 The Americanized remake

Unpacking “Americanization” The ize suffix is added to nouns and adjectives to turn them into a verb con­ noting to make. Sanitize for example, means to make sanitary, and commercialize means to make commercial. To Americanize therefore, means to make some­ thing American. Examining what it means to actually be American – notably in a country with a population of over 300 million and encompassing innu­ merable cultures and subcultures5 – is an investigation worth conducting, but in this discussion I simply focus on the “made by America” idea whereby “America” denotes the location of the producing studio (as contrasted with made in America given that, as explored later in this chapter, American remakes are actually “made” all over the world). While politically neutral in the context of etymology, in practice, the act of Americanizing carries the baggage of the US as a superpower, as a democ­ racy, as a wealthy and capitalist country and, most relevant to this discus­ sion, as a mass global exporter of popular culture. An American remake of a foreign production is, therefore, an act of Americanization and, on a basic level, such remakes become American through production by a US studio. In practice, however, Americanization carries more meaning, particularly so to those using the word as a criticism. With the concept rarely defined by those who use it, it’s worthwhile exploring some of the discourse around the term. In 1933, British literary critic Frank Leavis observed that, “It is a common­ place that we are being Americanised, but again a commonplace that seems, as a rule, to carry little understanding with it.”6 While Leavis’s remarks ref­ erence the aforementioned making component – i.e., that countries like Leavis’s Britain are being made American – it is notable that the author flags a fuzziness concerning application of the word in practice. In more recent work, Australian political scientist Robert Manne examines the word’s elas­ ticity in his discussion of the supposed Americanization of Australia: In some contexts, it is used merely as a kind of synonym for moderni­ sation, the inexorable rise of an individualistic, consumerist capitalist culture. . . . In other contexts Americanisation is used as an intellectual boo-word, revealing little more than the deep layers of political hostility to America on the Left or the anti-American social snobbery still found among parts of the Right.7 Political scientist Dominique Moïsi flags the intimate connection between Americanization and globalization: “For many people, especially critics, glo­ balization is identical with Americanization.”8 Social theorists Tim Chan­ dler and Mike Cronin also link Americanization and globalization in their work on the commercialization of sport: It has been argued that globalisation or, as it is sometimes referred to, Americanisation, is the contemporary form of cultural imperialism.

The Americanized remake

129

Although no state is formally seeking to annex another and make it part of an empire, companies . . . have sought to expand their market reach around the world.9 Manne, Moïsi, Chandler and Cronin introduce several ideas useful in contextualizing the use of Americanization as relevant to a discussion on remaking. More than just a reference to the producing nation, the term is undergirded by several key tenets as explored in the sections that follow: commercialism, imperialism and anti-American sentiment. I analyze these ideas to better understand how the American transnational remake is con­ ceptualized by critics and thus the range of ways that this practice is viewed as impacting the entertainment industry more broadly.

American commercialism Manne flagged the importance of “consumerist capitalist culture,” and Chandler and Cronin noted the role of market expansion. These economic ideas drive much of the understanding – as well as criticisms – of transna­ tional remaking and also explain their continued production. While money is a key theme in all remaking (Chapter 2), it is distinctly relevant to a dis­ cussion of American remakes because the assumption is that such a produc­ tion is uniquely commercial and perhaps even more so than other kinds of media-making. Such an idea is underpinned by potent stereotypes about American cultural output. In British television critic Janet Street-Porter’s discussion of American popular culture, for example, she criticizes its pat­ ent money-making objective: American television is made by committee, cast by investors, tested to within an inch of its life with focus groups, put together by teams of writers and bank-rolled by companies like Disney who espouse mainstream “family values”, no matter what they say to the contrary.10 (Israeli director Boaz Davidson – who remade his teen-comedy film Eskimo Limon [Lemon Popsicle] [1978] in the US as The Last American Virgin in 1982, also mentioned “focus group testing” as a key difference he experienced when filmmaking in America).11 While Street-Porter’s assessment is disparaging, she nonetheless tables a point of perceived distinction between US and world media undergirded by the art/commerce divide rampant in discourse around transnational remaking (and explored later in this chapter).12 With American filmmaking being commercial – produced by for-profit studios – the notion of Americanization resultantly means that interna­ tional content is primarily remade to make money. While art has always had a financial motive, and this isn’t an exclusively American phenom­ enon (Chapter 2), nonetheless, when we consider the television licensing

130 The Americanized remake models that fund much UK media production13 or the heavy government subsidies of the French film industry,14 arguably US filmmaking is more commercial than much media produced elsewhere, and thus output is skewed toward content with the greatest chance of appeal and profit. It is for this reason that in discussions on film and television Americanization is often synonymous with Hollywoodization,15 the latter specifically referenc­ ing the industrial activity of American media production. While economic drivers certainly don’t preclude American films from having artistic merit, art is nonetheless generally not the main driver of production, hence why – as noted by communications theorists Carlen Lavigne and Heather Marcovitch in their work on remakes – Hollywoodization “is often used disparagingly.”16 Attracting the largest possible audience is fundamental to US media production and thus Americanization describes the process of producing remakes that are more mainstream and thus more commercial. This process partly explains why transnational remakes are often compared unfavorably to their international source material and also why such productions are often accused of being dumber and more sanitized: ideas explored in the following sections. Dumber remakes A popular criticism made about remakes – and certainly one widely appar­ ent in reviews – is that they have been dumbed-down; an idea encapsulated in a Kalamazoo Gazette article: “For every classic film deemed the greatest of all time, there is a ridiculous remake for today’s mindless society.”17 Such an argument implies that the earlier title was richer and more complex and that the remake has been simplified, an accusation levelled in several reviews: • The crime-drama D.O.A. (1988) as a “dumb remake” of the 1949 film.18 • The comedy Mr. Deeds (2002) as a “dumbed-down” version of Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936).19 One critic suggests that “[t]he story is dumbed down, the humor has the subtlety of a sledgehammer,”20 another dubs it as a “particularly dumb remake.”21 • The action-drama Flight of the Phoenix (2004) as a “frightfully dumbeddown” remake of the 1965 film.22 • The action-comedy 2 Guns (2013) as a “dumbed down remake” of Char­ lie Varrick (1937).”23 • The sci-fi film The Island (2005) as a “ripped off and dumbed down remake” of Parts: The Clonus Horror (1979).24 • The sci-fi film Total Recall (2012) – a remake of the 1990 film – as a “dumbed-down remake.”25 • The sci-fi film Flatliners (2017) – a remake of the 1990 film – as having received “the dumbed-down Hollywood remake treatment.”26

The Americanized remake

131

Dumbed-down, of course, isn’t a new criticism. In his 1975 New York Times article about remakes, Robert Brustein argued that such dumbing-down was already well underway: Much of contemporary American entertainment, in short, is not so much being created as re-created. It is a recycled commodity which moves in dizzying spirals through various media, generally losing depth and detail along the way.27 The aforementioned examples – each American remakes of American content – are part of the broader negative discourse around remakes as a production category and reflect a more general perception of US popular culture as dumb or “low-brow.” It is, therefore, predictable that the same criticism gets applied – perhaps with compounded scorn – specifically to transnational remakes where Americanization becomes synonymous with the supposed dumbing-down of richer, more complex foreign content: • Gracepoint – the remake of the British Broadchurch – as “seem[ing] inten­ tionally dumbed down.”28 • Breathless (1983) – the remake of the French crime-drama À bout de souf­ fle (Breathless) (1960) – as a “dumb remake.”29 • The Vanishing (1993) – the autoremake of the Dutch thriller Spoorloos (The Vanishing) (1998) – as “severely dumbed-down”30 and “needlessly dumbed down.”31 • Bedazzled (2000) as a “dumbed-down remake” of the 1967 British comedy-fantasy.32 • Get Carter (2000) – the remake of the British crime-drama (1971) – as a “dumb remake.”33 • Alfie (2004) as a “dumb remake” of the 1966 British drama.34 • Shutter (2008) – the remake of the 2004 Thai horror – as “remade for our dumbed-down audiences.”35 • Pulse (2006) – the remake of the Japanese film Kairo (Pulse) (2001) – as a “dumbed-down remake of Kiyoshi Kurosawa’s disturbingly abstract Japanese horror film.”36 • The Uninvited (2009) – the remake of the Korean horror Janghwa, Hongryeon (A Tale of Two Sisters) (2003) – as “dumbed down and white-washed.”37 • Straw Dogs (2011) – the remake of the 1971 British thriller – as a “dumbed-down new version,” and as “much more simplistic than the original.”38 One critic specifically calls out the protagonist, David (James Marsden), as “mak[ing] no sense, either. . . . [H]e has been dumbed down from academic to screenwriter.”39 • We Are What We Are (2013) – the remake of the Mexican horror Somos lo que hay (We Are What We Are) (2010) – as having “been dumbed down into an ordinary genre horror with franchise possibilities.”40

132 The Americanized remake • Brick Mansions (2014) as a “dumbed down” remake of the French crimedrama Banlieue 13 (District B13) (2004).41 • Inside (2016) as a “dumbed down version” of the French horror À l’intérieur (Inside) (2007).42 • The live-action sci-fi film Ghost in the Shell (2017) – the remake of the Japanese animation Kôkaku Kidôtai (Ghost in the Shell) (1995) – as “dumbed down.”43 • The Upside (2017) – the US remake of the French comedy Intouchables (The Untouchables) (2011) – as “dumbed down.”44 A 2012 Observer article laments the broader idea of the “dumb remake trend that has blighted Euro cinema of yore,”45 and a review of the Norwegian horror Trolljegeren (Troll Hunter) (2010) references the standard rhetoric that haunts American remakes: “You’ll want to catch this clever movie before Hollywood ruins everything with a dumb remake.”46 The idea of dumbed-down US content is underpinned by assumptions made about American films and the appetites of American audiences and nods to the anti-American hostility flagged by Manne earlier whereby such criticism is a way to cast aspersions on the country. Film distributor Alexan­ der van Dulmen encapsulates these sentiments in his comments rational­ izing the box office failure of the mystery-drama Cloud Atlas (2012): “Cloud Atlas has a more intellectual approach and the European audience is more open to movies where you have to think a bit.”47 The idea of American audiences as lazier and less intellectual than their foreign counterparts is repeated in much cultural analysis48 and is evident in the remake criticisms quoted earlier where “today’s mindless society” and “our dumbed-down audiences” are presented as truisms, notably so within articles published in American media outlets where the audience for such an opinion is, presum­ ably, also American, thus suggesting a kind of widespread acceptance of such views (or, at least, a lack of offense taken by them). The concept of dumbing-down content centers on several key differences repeatedly observed between world media and US content. The first is the accusation that American films tend to be more literal and, as a con­ sequence, heavy-handed. In Hadley Freeman’s Guardian article on British television, for example, she contends that US programs tend to “patronise viewers.”49 Street-Porter makes a similar point: Britain and America have very different sensibilities. We [Brits] are grown-up, sophisticated, knowing and capable of layers of meaning. Sadly, Desperate Housewives [2004–2012] proves once again American popular culture is one-note – it tells you a story in a childlike, simple way and then clobbers you over the head with it time and time again. Subtle it ain’t.50 (The perception of US media as “one-note” is also identified elsewhere).51 Such arguments reflect accusations made about American popular culture

The Americanized remake

133

more broadly but – as Jennie Yabroff discusses in her Newsweek article on adaptations of Scandinavian content – they are often criticisms dispropor­ tionately directed at US transnational remakes: Mainstream American cinema, after all, can bludgeon viewers with heavy-handed literalism, while Scandinavian cinema has traditionally been more comfortable letting viewers supply the film’s meaning.52 Film theorist Thomas Leitch discusses both dumbing-down and literalizing, observing that “Hollywoodization dumbs down a media product for a mass audience, emphasizing its status as a product” and observes that this pro­ cess often “literalizes the symbolic.”53 John Badham – the director of Point of No Return (1993), the US remake of the French thriller La Femme Nikita (1990) – also discusses the removal of ambiguity, something he deems ram­ pant in American film (re)production: Europeans love ambiguous endings, and if you give American audi­ ences an ambiguous ending, they get very angry or confused. They want pat endings. They want everything to be wrapped up neatly at the end of the movie.54 While literalism and heavy-handedness are subjective assessments and can be perceived as a cultural style and/or as an outsider’s biased appraisal, nonetheless, in the context of remaking such ideas become specific talking points whereby Americanization is often construed as involving a deep and complex piece of world media being remade as dumb(er). A variation on the criticism of literalism is the accusation that, in the process of producing a remake that’s palatable to mainstream American audiences, much of the complexity and – as Badham alluded, the ambiguity – is removed. Film theorist Joseph Anderson addressed this in a 1962 Film Quarterly essay, arguing that “Hollywood scripture requires all characteri­ zation to be established without ambiguity.”55 While Anderson’s assess­ ment might be attributable to the Hays production code in effect at the time of his writing – and more specifically, the Code’s prohibition against moral ambiguity – the absence of ambiguity is also a criticism detectable in post-Code criticism. Cultural theorists Jennifer Forrest and Leonard Koos identify the perception that “American cinema deals in black-and-white oppositions with the neat elimination of all the grays.”56 Cultural theorist Anne White illustrates such ideas in her analysis of the Spanish romance Abre los ojos (Open Your Eyes) (1997) and the US remake Vanilla Sky (2001), positing a perceived American discomfort with ambiguity – even long after the demise of the Code – as a key driver of reproduction: As a general rule, one expects to find the Hollywood hypertext will normally attempt to explain or clarify any areas of doubt or ambiguity which were perceived to be present in the European hypotext or it may

134 The Americanized remake streamline or remove elements perceived to be unnecessarily compli­ cating. In narrative terms, this may mean providing motivation for the apparently inexplicable behavior of characters; spelling out the conse­ quences of immoral actions, particularly those relating to law-breaking; tying up neatly any loose ends relating to the storyline, and replacing vague details about setting with specifics about when and where.57 White argues that such Americanization speaks of “Hollywood’s need to show and tell.”58 The practice of dumbing-down can be explained by several factors. Most obviously it is driven by a desire to give American audiences more of what they are used to (even if, perhaps, not necessarily what they want)59 – or, as some critics have argued, what they deserve60 – thus meaning narratives are presented in more linear and literal ways, with less ambiguity. Such material also tends to be faster-paced, establishing plot much more quickly. This latter idea was addressed by Delia Fine, the vice president of the US network A&E, in her comments about adapting UK material for American audiences: [Americans] need a story to get going faster. We need a story to be faster-paced from the beginning. . . . Typically speaking I think the UK audience is much more patient sitting around for the first twenty min­ utes if need be.61 This assumed American lack of patience means that adaptations of foreign films need to be mindful of the attention span of audiences, particularly so young audiences, thus alluding to an additional explanation for dumbingdown content (explored further in Chapter 5). In cultural theorist Helena Goscilo’s discussion of the aversion of American audiences to foreign films, amongst her explanations was pacing and “the tempo of American editing so at odds with the long takes inseparable from auteurism.”62 Film theo­ rist Emanuel Levy makes the same point, flagging the common belief that American audiences are “bored by foreign films’ slow pacing.”63 American director Brian De Palma also exhibits familiarity with this idea, as apparent in his comments about remaking the French thriller Crime d’amour (Love Crime) (2010) in the US as Passion (2012): “You go through all these labori­ ous flashbacks,” he groaned, reflecting on the earlier film. “I just got rid of all of that.”64 It should, of course, be noted, that simplifying – or dumbing-down – isn’t universally considered as something bad. De Palma’s comments about the “laborious flashbacks” in Crime d’amour highlight that what might be per­ ceived as “artistic” to one viewer will be construed as indulgent by another. While auteurism is something championed by film scholars, audiences often consider such material as laborious, wanky and pretentious. Equally, what constitutes “rich and complex” can just as easily be construed as confusing;

The Americanized remake

135

a point David Edwards makes in his Daily Mirror review of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, the 2011 US remake of the Swedish film. Edwards, in fact, praises the remake as “not only slicker and more stylish than the 2009 movie, but also easier to get a handle on.”65 Whether or not American media is truly “dumber” than world cinema is open for debate – Jake Wilson in The Sydney Morning Herald presents the counter case arguing about modern Hollywood films, “If anything, I’d say they’re getting too intellectual”66 – but this dumbing-down perception persists driven by factors including the apparent premium in Hollywood placed on literalism, reduced ambiguity, hastened pace and happy endings as discussed in the next section and the heightened emphasis on superficial qualities like special effects and celebrity as explored later in this chapter. Sanitized remakes While remakes are often sexed-up to carve out a new, modern and notably adult audience, occasionally the reverse happens whereby films are made less sexy: through less sex or less nudity.67 In his work on Hollywoodization, Leitch discusses that this process can involve “impos[ing] something a little closer to a conventional sexuality morality.”68 His illustration is the lovers in the romance Cousins (1989) – the US remake of the French film Cousin, Cousine (1975) – whereby their sexuality is remade as more “conventional.” Sanitizing is an accusation often levelled at American transnational remakes, whereby the assumption is that, to make a broadly appealing film, con­ tent is often toned down. Amol Rajan, for example, discusses the apparent American sanitization that transpired in the teen-comedy The Inbetweeners (2012), the US remake of the British series (2008–2010), in his Independent article: If you read scripts of the British show, and listen hard when watching repeats, you’ll notice that, like with Iago, the core of their language is filth. There are constant references to sexual obscenity, adolescent frustration, and scatological produce. These have come to typify how we view teenage boys. In America, by contrast, boys who are 16–19 are portrayed in a more flattering light through television. Of course the peccadilloes and pimples are still there; but an image of good, gilded and mostly clean living dominates. What got lost in translation in the American version was the dirty minds and disgusting habits of our teen­ age reprobates.69 While sanitizing can indeed refer to the sexual quotient (something I exam­ ine elsewhere in the context of remakes)70 – and indeed American films are often stereotyped as being less sexy than their European counterparts71 – it also refers to reducing other controversial content like certain kinds of violence or scariness. The sanitizing of darker content is also frequently

136 The Americanized remake observed in discussions on US transnational remakes. Todd McGowan alludes to this in his analysis of the films of director Christopher Nolan: Typically, Hollywood takes a foreign original . . . that attracted a large following, and it dilutes the edginess and grittiness of the original in order to render the film more acceptable to a mainstream American audience. It is difficult to think of a case in which the remake becomes more disturbing or ambitious than the original.72 McGowan’s points are echoed in a range of criticisms. In Danielle Ryan’s Paste discussion on Janghwa, Hongryeon (A Tale of Two Sisters) and its US remake The Uninvited, for example, she observes that, “The violent scenes from the R-rated Two Sisters have been altered throughout, and the film’s more disturbing content has been removed.”73 Ryan extends the same criti­ cism to The Grudge, the US autoremake of Ju-on: In another instance of putting on kiddy gloves when remaking a great foreign horror film, America’s remake of Ju-on, The Grudge, is a PG-13 snoozefest. Most of the truly frightening scenes were either removed completely or toned down, and Sarah Michelle Gellar isn’t nearly as good as Megumi Okina in the leading role.74 In Justin Bruce’s ScreenRant discussion of the horror film Martyrs (2015) – the remake of the French film (2008) – he similarly flags that the remake “was severely toned down. The result was a bland horror film that did noth­ ing to improve upon the original.”75 Mike D’Angelo in Esquire also spot­ lights the sanitizing apparent in the aforementioned US autoremake of Spoorloos (The Vanishing): Hollywood remakes of challenging foreign films are usually watered down until they’re safely innocuous. The Vanishing, an unforgettable 1988 Dutch thriller, ends with the hero buried alive, screaming into the darkness; the U.S. version, made five years later – and directed by the same guy – ends with the hero (now Kiefer Sutherland) buried alive . . . and then dug up by his girlfriend, who helps him defeat the bad guy and restore order. Cue pop song.76 The toning down of darker content in these examples is interesting because, while Hollywood often fervently embraces violence, nonetheless, the kinds of more disturbing and morally ambiguous violence found in world media are commonly perceived as less palatable to US audiences. The American sanitizing discussed in this section can be explained by several factors. First, the aforementioned Hays Code – the production code enforced from 1934 until the late 1960s – severely limited the contents of films: things such as “licentious” activity, nudity or even the aforementioned

The Americanized remake

137

moral ambiguity in the context of crime, were prohibited. Resultantly, many US remakes of foreign material reproduced under the Code had to tone down the contents. While the Hays Code has not been used for nearly half a century, it left an indelible mark on American filmmaking and shaped genre conventions and also generations of audience expectations. The Hays Code, as well as the puritanical communities in the US that petitioned for it – and which, of course, never completely dissolved in the aftermath – is also partly responsible for much contemporary media content. In his 1962 article, he contends that “Hollywood films are seldom more than disguised morality plays,”77 and in his analysis of The Magnificent Seven (1960) – the US Western remake of the Japanese samurai film Shichinin no samurai (Seven Samurai) (1954) – Anderson argues that: “Hollywood usually squeezes a moralizing conclusion out of everything it touches.”78 While, decades on, such arguments may no longer be broadly applicable, the legacy of the Code and America’s enduring puritanism – often coded on screen as “fam­ ily values” as spotlighted by Street-Porter – dictates that US media is still subject to criticism as excessively moralistic. Media theorist Silvia Barlaam examines such moralizing in her comparison of the British drama series Queer as Folk (1999–2000) and its US remake (2000–2005): Even if drug use is present in both series, again the British series lets the audience draw the conclusion from the evidence presented, whereas the American series has to pursue such storylines to their full demise . . . and underline its moral lesson in what is right and what is wrong.79 In this example, even on occasions when the American series closely resem­ bles its British predecessor in its representations of sex and drug use, as Barlaam observes, the US version moralizes in ways less common in world media. Conversely, it should be flagged that, on occasions when a US repro­ duction doesn’t moralize, a backlash can ensue. Media theorist Faye Woods alludes to this in her discussion of the short-lived teen drama series Skins (2011) – the US remake of the British series (2007–2013) – and observes: “When the show was transferred to the United States, this lack of moralizing was at the root of the controversy surrounding the program’s debut.”80 The remake only lasted ten episodes and was widely considered a flop. A les­ son is thus provided that if a broader audience is sought in the US, a lit­ tle moralizing might actually be worthwhile from an audience-expansion perspective. It’s worth acknowledging that on some occasions sanitization may not actually be an overt motive but nonetheless may occur as a consequence of (mis)translation. Bruce for example – like Ryan quoted earlier – criticizes several US remakes of Asian horror films flagging them as insufficiently scary. He ponders whether some “movies merely aren’t suited for an American remake.”81 Film theorist Dorothy Wong proposes a similar idea, highlight­ ing the confused consequences of attempting to translate the (potentially)

138 The Americanized remake untranslatable aspects of Asian horror:82 “The original, in the process of translation, disappears, leaving behind a ghostly afterlife of manipulated intertextual signs.”83 While it is easy to simply construe American remakes as dumbed- or watered-down, it could be argued that some material is not always remake-able for an American audience, and thus, in the process of Hollywoodization, important things get “lost”.

American imperialism Inherent in Americanizing is the notion that doing so is part of cultural imperialism, a process that describes a dominant culture – in this case the US – imposing its values and practices onto a less powerful culture.84 With the demise of the Soviet Union and thus the US remaining as the domi­ nant superpower, concerns about US cultural hegemony have been fervent since the 1990s.85 As film theorist Iain Smith argues, “Hollywood’s influ­ ence throughout the globe is often framed as a form of cultural imperialism and/or Americanisation,”86 and as Forrest and Koos identify, Hollywood is frequently perceived “as a rogue King Kong bombarding the world with a certain American ideology, squeezing out weaker cinematic voices.”87 While my belief is that there is no singular “American culture” and there­ fore no homogenous American message being transmitted through US media output (a topic returned to toward the end of this chapter) and while I would contest the notion that other cultures passively accept such products without any resistance or critique,88 nonetheless, this is the rheto­ ric of imperialism. Film theorists Rüdiger Heinze and Lucia Krämer sum­ marize these positions in their work on remaking: Very often they are based on the simplistic notion that when it isn’t busy making bad adaptations or insipid sequels, Hollywood, as the hegem­ onic global film industry – and by implication the entire U.S.-American popular culture industry – is still the voracious cultural imperialist that steals or buys good ideas from European and East Asian cinema, or recycles its own old ones from a better, bygone era, because it has no ideas of its own. It then ‘degrades’ them by adapting them to the tastes of an undemanding, consumerist American audience.89 Film theorist Lucy Mazdon posits a similar idea in her work on US adapta­ tions of French cinema, using the word debase: “The negative discourses which surround the remake process establish a one-way trajectory from the ‘art’ of the ‘French’ film to the debased commercialism of the ‘American’ remake.”90 Media theorist Chelsey Crawford discusses this same idea, not­ ing, “these cross-cultural remakes are disparaged for commercializing an art form, cannibalizing other cultures through imperialism, and corrupt­ ing originality, all in the name of financial reward.”91 In The Independent, Leigh Singer also makes this point, observing that “Whenever it co-opts

The Americanized remake

139

foreign-language films, Hollywood is typically cast as the great corruptor of pure world cinema.”92 Heinze and Krämer, Mazdon, Crawford and Singer summarize popular criticisms of America as an imperialist and notably introduce the idea of the US as a dominant power stealing from other countries and then profiting from their pilfering. Before examining the specific notion of American “thievery,” it’s impor­ tant to flag that any kind of remaking – including US remaking of US material – is often understood this way. Remakes are frequently described as “knock-offs,”93 and their production is often accused of forgery whereby the remake is framed as an inferior product, oftentimes made without suffi­ cient attribution (Chapter 2). A similar theme is identified in rhetoric fram­ ing remakes as parasitical. Cultural theorists Scott Lukas and John Marmysz discuss this in their work on horror remakes, noting that such films have “been targeted by critics as a form of pure borrowing – as a sort of cultural parasite that infects the high art form known as film.”94 Film theorist Miguel Mera similarly observes that “many studies simply view the re-invented text as parasitical – cashing-in on the success of the source – as if this is the only reason that re-invention occurs.”95 While theft – as discussed throughout this book – is key in the negative rhetoric surrounding reproduction, it is an accusation with heightened traction in discussions of transnational remak­ ing whereby America is positioned as the cultural imperialist stealing from less prosperous nations, in turn stirring exploitation and power relations into the discussion. On June 6, 2017, in the wake of the London terrorist attacks, UK come­ dian Gina Yashere was a guest on The Daily Show (1996–) with Trevor Noah. In her comments, Yashere suggested ways that Brits could return to normal in the aftermath of the attacks: The best way us Brits know how to deal with terrorism is to not let it change our way of life. So we’re going to keep doing what we do which is driving on the proper side of the road and making TV shows for America to steal. Yashere was, of course, being facetious, but the idea of America stealing through the process of transnational remaking is echoed widely; film theo­ rists Owen Evans and Graeme Harper, for example, evocatively reference the popular notion of “Hollywood’s propensity to raid the divine archives of European cinema.”96 While there are innumerable counter arguments to the theft accusation – Mazdon, for example, spotlights that the makers of foreign films often make more money from selling the rights to a US studio than they ever would have done through distributing their own production,97 equally, as discussed in Chapter 2, remakes can, in fact, reinvigorate interest in a predecessor – none­ theless, the rhetoric around a pillaging imperialist persists.

140 The Americanized remake Underpinning the ideas discussed in this section is, as Manne suggests, an anti-American sentiment where Americanization is framed as something malevolent.

Anti-American sentiment In 2011, NBC published an article on a proposed remake of the Hong Kong action-drama Dip huet seung hung (The Killer) (1989) titled: “ ‘The Killer’ Getting Americanized in 3D, Try Not to Be Sad.”98 Like Yashere’s joke, such a headline only makes sense in a world where the notion of a foreign film being Americanized is commonly understood as something both common and, notably, bad.99 A similar idea is identifiable in an article announcing the American remake (2018–) of the Norwegian teen series Skam (Shame) (2015–2017), where the author anticipates that Norwegians “may feel queasy about what an Americanized version of Skam might look like.”100 Americanization in the context of remaking can only be construed as problematic if we understand America – and American media-making – as such. While anti-American sentiment is both common and complicated101 – driven by factors including military and economic dominance, the coun­ try’s perceived cultural hegemony and, more recently, the divisiveness of the Donald Trump presidency – it is noteworthy that such sentiments have never actually been potent enough to halt production of transnational remakes nor curtail their global consumption. Akin to the more gen­ eral “grumble gap” suggested by Steven Zeitchik in the Washington Post – whereby audiences complain about remakes but continue to pay to see them102 – global audiences complain about the US as a cultural hegemon but continue to heartily consume American cultural output. Anti-American sentiment thus may be important in the realm of poli­ tics – and is something that keeps critics and academics busy – but has little impact on the actual business of Hollywood. An underpinning of American audience aversion to foreign content – and thus a central motivation in remaking such content – is the perception that foreign content is artistic, niche and difficult as compared to the com­ paratively accessible fare that American audiences are used to.

The art vs commerce divide To understand the motives for American transnational remakes, it’s neces­ sary to familiarize ourselves with the stereotypes hounding world media. Much, for example, has been written about the assumption that content produced in countries other than the US – and particularly so if subtitles are involved (a topic returned to later in this chapter) – is inherently high­ brow and artistic. Film theorist Thomas Elsaesser discusses this, identifying the popular, albeit simplistic, perception that “Europe stands for art, and the US for pop; Europe for high culture, America for mass entertainment;

The Americanized remake

141

Europe for artisanal craft, America for industrial mass production.”103 Lavi­ gne and Marcovitch similarly flag the assumption “that British television is entirely filled with accomplished and elegant stage thespians . . . [and] that American remakes can only degrade and distort the original U.K. mate­ rial.”104 Forrest and Koos also address these stereotypes, notably related to the different appeals made to their audiences, “with one intended ostensi­ bly for the supposedly naïve, childlike American, the other for the ironic, adult European.”105 While in practice – as Lavigne and Marcovitch note – television programs from both the UK and US “may run the gamut from puerile trash to masterpiece, from simple to complex”106 – and, of course, this is true the world over – such stereotypes nonetheless persist. Ideas about an art/commerce divide function on two levels. On one hand they reflect the negative connotations of American remakes where they are perceived as patently commercial: that to Americanize means to turn an “original” into something mass-produced (explored further in Chap­ ter 2). On the other hand, these ideas hint to why American audiences are reluctant to embrace foreign content even in instances when such mate­ rial actually strongly resembles US media. Film theorist Michael Harney dis­ cusses this in his work on movies including the French thriller La Femme Nikita, identifying that such productions are “intended to imitate glossy Hollywood product and conventional narrative themes” and yet are seldom perceived this way by American audiences and find “art-house distribution in the United States merely because they are foreign productions.”107 Film theorists Anna Westerståhl Stenport and Garrett Traylor discuss the same issues as related to the Swedish thriller Män som hatar kvinnor (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) (2009). The film – an adaptation of the enormously popu­ lar Stieg Larsson novel from 2005 – was, akin to La Femme Nikita, a slick, overtly commercial film resembling typical Hollywood fare. When the 2009 Swedish film screened in the US, however, American audiences didn’t – and perhaps couldn’t – consume it the same way as the Europeans; as Stenport and Traylor explain, “when the film travels across the Atlantic, it arguably transforms into an upmarket art film, screening primarily in urban cent­ ers and college towns rather than ubiquitously at suburban multiplexes.”108 Both La Femme Nikita and Män som hatar kvinnor (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) received low distribution in the US because of their perceived for­ eignness (expanded on later in this chapter) and thus, to become properly appealing to American audiences, they needed an American makeover: La Femme Nikita was remade in the US as Point of No Return and American audi­ ences got their own Dragon Tattoo in 2011. In answering the “why bother” question of Géla Babluani remaking his French film 13 Tzameti (2005) in the US as 13 (2010), film theorists Wheeler Winston Dixon and Gwen­ dolyn Audrey Foster identify the remake’s attempt to neutralize the first movie’s “art film” feel in order to attract mainstream audiences: “Because black-and-white films, especially with subtitles, may win critical plaudits and perform respectably at the box office, but an English-language color

142 The Americanized remake remake – now you’re talking real box-office potential.”109 Americanization in such a discussion thus involves neutralizing the “art” feel of the film as well as its foreignness. With the idea of non-American content perceived as foreign – and for­ eign content as art – also comes stereotypes about such films being hard work for audiences: that navigating the unfamiliarity of the locations, stars and language (elaborated on later in this chapter) – as well as the ten­ dency for international cinema to be, as discussed earlier, less literal and slower-paced – renders such films less as escapist entertainment and more as “highbrow.” This idea is encapsulated by a comment posted by Steve Paradis on a Guardian article about Gracepoint: “Most cineastes have DVDs of Seven Samurai and The Magnificent Seven. The first DVD, of course, is the greater motion picture, but the second DVD has more scratches on it.”110 The undercurrent here is that international content might be “good for you” – perhaps the foreign title is the “greater” film – but it’s not necessarily the movie that people watch for recreation. The American remake is thus the more accessible and notably more enjoyable offering. Americanizing can thus be interpreted as the process of taking what’s good about a foreign film and repackaging it as mainstream entertainment.111 Such “repackag­ ing” or, in this context, Americanizing, involves many of the devices already discussed – simplification, speeding up, removal of ambiguity – and, as explored in the next section, the happy ending. An American ending Alluded to by Badham earlier is the propensity for American audiences to want a certain type of ending. While Badham references the idea of an unambiguous conclusion with no loose ends, also widely discussed is the tendency for US films to have a happy ending. Goscilo discusses this idea, spotlighting “Americans’ addiction to formulaic genres, the majority of which dictate a happy or unambiguous ending.”112 Charles Bramesco pre­ sents a similar case in The Guardian: An order for Americanization is not a death certificate for subtlety or quality, but these [foreign] productions have intangible qualities – aloofness, a sadistic streak, a greater comfort with unhappy endings – unique to their homelands.113 Cultural theorist James Twitchell similarly observes that “Hollywood now seems determined, no matter how grim the yarn, to send audiences home laughing or, better yet, smiling through tears.”114 The belief that American viewers want happy endings has seen screen adaptations of several novels altered so that the conclusion is more upbeat. While this was a point of con­ sternation following film adaptations of modern novels like Jodi Picoult’s My Sister’s Keeper (2003) – adapted for the screen in 2009115 – or even clas­ sics like Truman Capote’s novella Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1958) adapted for

The Americanized remake

143

the screen in 1961, as relevant to this study, it is especially pronounced in cases where a (re)adaptation alters the ending to deliver audiences something more optimistic. Elsewhere I discuss My Fair Lady (1964) – the (re)adaptation of the George Bernard Shaw play Pygmalion (1913), first filmed in Germany in 1935 – altering the ending so that Eliza (Audrey Hep­ burn) and Henry Higgins (Rex Harrison) end up as a couple.116 Twitchell similarly discusses the revised ending of the 1995 The Scarlet Letter, an adap­ tation of the 1850 Nathaniel Hawthorne novel, first filmed in 1908: Thanks to an upbeat ending, Dimmesdale [Gary Oldman] and Hester [Demi Moore] ride off to start a new life. . . . As they reach the edge of the forest, Hester unfastens the scarlet letter, letting it fall into the muck. The rear wheel of their wagon rolls over it. Ah, Hollywood, ah, mores.117 This conclusion is contrasted with the ending of the novel as well as the endings used in the previous film versions, where Dimmesdale dies in Hester’s arms. Twitchell also discusses the 1939 adaptation of Wuthering Heights – first filmed in 1920 – being similarly tweaked for an audience assumed to crave levity: Back in 1939, producer Sam Goldwyn reacted to disappointing sneak screenings of Wuthering Heights by adding an epilogue in which Lau­ rence Olivier and Merle Oberon are reunited in heaven. Needless to say, that scene is not to be found in Emily Brontë’s famous novel, but it resulted in a big hit.118 As specifically relevant to the themes of this chapter, the imposition of the happy ending has also been observed in many analyses of transnational remakes. When Disney adapted Victor Hugo’s 1831 novel The Hunchback of Notre Dame – first filmed as the 1905 French silent film Esmeralda – as the 1996 animation for example, it dramatically changed the book’s ending, most notably by sparing Esmeralda’s life. This can be likened to Disney’s 1989 take on Hans Christian Andersen’s story The Little Mermaid (1837) – first appearing on screen as part of a 1961 episode of Shirley Temple’s Story­ book (1958–1961) – where Ariel’s suicide is eliminated. In Bruce’s discus­ sion of the romance City of Angels (1998) – the US remake of the German film Der Himmel über Berlin (Wings of Desire) (1987) – he observes that part of the Americanization involved transforming the story “into a formulaic romance,”119 and giving it a happy ending. Jessica Kiang in IndieWire dis­ cusses similar ideas apparent in George Sluizer’s US autoremake of Spoor­ loos (The Vanishing): The ending, so chillingly nihilist in the original, was literally ruined by a completely counterproductive “happy” Hollywood version in which good wins out after all (totally contrary to well, everything the film was actually about).120

144 The Americanized remake Dixon and Foster similarly observe that Sluizer “was forced to rewrite the shocking, deeply nihilistic ending of the original to create a forced happy ending,”121 and cultural theorist Daniel Varndell spotlights the Sluizer autoremake’s “fourth act” designed to give the assumed “redemption” that American audiences apparently demand.122 In turn, Americanization in these examples centers on giving viewers – both in the US and abroad – more of what is expected from an American film. It is worth pausing to note that depriving an American audience of a happy ending can be a factor in a poor box office. In a Peekaboo article about the aforementioned The Last American Virgin – the US remake of the Israeli film Eskimo Limon (Lemon Popsicle) – the remake’s poor box office is linked to the film’s unhappy and thus seemingly un-American ending where the boy doesn’t get the girl: The story is charming, but forgettable. [Boaz] Davidson sometimes for­ got that he was making a movie for the Americans (jokes they did not understand, or worse: a sad ending), and at the end of the day they were not too keen on the result.123 Another reviewer flagged that “for a generation who watched this on cable or on VHS at an impressionable age, it was a major buzzkill of an ending (for an otherwise lighthearted film).”124 While an American ending is often assumed to be one that is happy, it can also be one where order is restored and justice meted out. Twitchell dis­ cusses this as related to the thriller Fatal Attraction (1987) – the US remake of the British film Diversion (1980) – observing that, as with the aforemen­ tioned Wuthering Heights, test audiences wanted a more righteous ending than the original conclusion proposed. In the ending that had originally been planned, Alex (Glenn Close) was set to frame Dan (Michael Douglas) for murder and then commit suicide. This ending didn’t test well and thus was altered: “In the second version, the knife-wielding Ms. Close emerges from the bathtub to be shot by wife Anne Archer and all ends happily.”125 Film theorist Tricia Welsch discusses this form of Americanization as appar­ ent in Fritz Lang’s crime-drama Scarlet Street (1945), the US remake of Jean Renoir’s French film La Chienne (1931): Where the Renoir film lets the murderer escape to a life gleefully unfet­ tered by bourgeois cares, Lang’s remake shows the criminal’s despera­ tion and divided self . . . whereas the French film depicts an ‘exotic, dangerously unregulated’ culture, the remake asserts American values by establishing a punishment to fit the crime.126 Such endings can be interpreted as an extension of sanitizing, dumbingdown and linear storytelling, as well as a consequence of the legacy of the

The Americanized remake

145

Hays Code whereby moral ambiguity is eliminated, criminals are met with appropriate punishment and social order is restored. While, as discussed, Americanization is routinely criticized, nonetheless, this model seems to succeed in attracting a mainstream audience, which is a key driver of transnational remaking.

Audience expansion In his Maclean’s article about remaking, Brian D. Johnson asks – and answers – the question of why bother remaking a perfectly good film: “Usu­ ally the motive is crassly commercial – to reproduce a proven hit for an audience unaware of the original because it’s too old, too obscure, or in French.”127 Too obscure and in French alludes to why American audiences – and, arguably, also audiences outside of a foreign film’s country of origin – likely haven’t seen the originary material: remaking, therefore, creates the opportunity to expand the audience for a story. This motive has been artic­ ulated widely by personnel involved in US transnational remaking. David Tennant starred in both the British Broadchurch and its US remake Gracepoint and addressed why a show as popular as Broadchurch – notably one that i) was made in English and ii) at the time was still in production in the UK – was remade in the US: I think there’s a sense, with the whole show, that if it’s not broke, you’re not really out to fix it. . . . There’s a huge populist audience who haven’t seen it yet, and they are, I think, who we’re principally aiming at.128 Aiming for a “populist audience” – i.e., a mainstream US audience – is something addressed by Jeff Saporito in his ScreenPrism work on US adapta­ tions of British television: Without a cable package that includes the likes of BBC America or without a Netflix subscription, many of these shows simply would never make it into American homes. Meanwhile, everyone is capable of watch­ ing FOX or NBC, free of charge. This fact tells networks that even if an adaptation pales in comparison to the original, most people won’t know. Thus, in an effort to get the job done quickly, they tend to remake the series as-is and hope something sticks with its new viewership.129 Saporito’s ideas are echoed by Carolyn Bernstein, one of the producers of Gracepoint, who claimed that the audience for Broadchurch “represented, truly, less than 1 percent of the American television viewing population,”130 hence its stateside reproduction. The audience-expansion points made by Tennant, Saporito and Bern­ stein are even more pronounced as related to non-English-language

146 The Americanized remake material, which, as noted, rarely finds broad distribution in US cinemas or on broadcast television. Simon Oakes, for example, the producer of Let Me In (2010) – the American remake of the Swedish vampire film Låt den rätte komma in (Let the Right One In) (2008) – spoke about this in his explanation for making the US version: “however hard you might try or I might try to get people to see the original, they’re never going to do it.”131 Sam Raimi who produced the American remake of the Japanese horror film Ju-on (The Grudge) echoes this point: There’s a large American audience that won’t go see a film made in Japan, starring Japanese actors, in Japanese. . . . I felt this was such a great story that the rest of the world should see it.132 Director Michael Haneke also articulates this argument in his justification for remaking his 1997 Austrian film Funny Games in the US in 2007: The first film didn’t reach the public I think really ought to see this film. . . . So I decided to make it again. . . . The original was in German, and English-speaking audiences don’t often see subtitled films.133 By remaking a film in English, the reach – and thus, potential audience – of a story dramatically expands, both within the US and outside.134 This lat­ ter point highlights that audience expansion isn’t just about getting more American eyeballs on a production but can also be about selling the new material back to the country of the predecessor knowing that the audience may be interested in seeing a high-production values, Americanized take on their story. Crawford discusses this in her work on US remakes of Asian films, identifying why the media of certain countries is sometimes specifi­ cally selected for transnational reproduction: They were not chosen for superior story, style, or other admirable artis­ tic or technological achievements; instead, their origins in nations with increased wealth and industrial importance made them worthy of Hol­ lywood’s attention.135 With growing economies throughout Asia, taking Asian films and making them bigger and better (Chapter 1) can potentially grant such remakes popularity in the US as well as in their originary countries as well as around the world. The perception of foreign content as artistic and challenging is under­ pinned by the notion that the contents are unfamiliar to Americans: the places and faces and cultural references are all, by nature, foreign to stateside audiences. Americanization thus involves sufficiently altering the contents that are assumed not to resonate with Americans to produce something comparatively more appealing, as discussed in the next section.

The Americanized remake

147

Neutralizing the unfamiliar In her work on television, media theorist Jeanette Steemers contends that all countries exhibit a preference for locally produced content.136 Lavigne makes a similar argument: [I]t’s been shown across the board that viewers like to see stories about people like themselves in places they recognise, which is why remakes often change locations, names, occupations, and other cultural refer­ ences as well as the accents.137 Asian-American producer Roy Lee makes this same observation in his com­ ments about transnational remakes: “The reality is that most people, from all different countries, would prefer their own version.”138 The US is in a unique position whereby it actually produces enough local content – both television and film – to enable domestic viewers to only ever watch locally-made media should they choose to.139 Whereas most other countries are used to their film and television being a mix of local and US content – as well as subtitled or dubbed media from elsewhere – this isn’t the case for Americans. Be it because US networks have historically been resistant to broadcasting international content140 or simply because of the size and reach of the US media industry, the viewing preference of Americans is sharply skewed toward home-grown content, and thus with this preference comes an assumed aversion to foreign content, particularly so to subtitles and dubbing, something considered a uniquely American con­ cern.141 Forrest and Koos argue that this bias for local content is a key driver of transnational reproduction in the US: Operating on the principle that consumers buy what looks familiar, Hollywood affixes its stylistic signature in the remaking of a foreign film in order to ensure the success of its international and domestic reception.142 For the purposes of this discussion, I interpret stylistic signature to mean a film that feels American. A key reason that Hollywood reproduces interna­ tional content is because, simply, the originary material is foreign. While foreign has, thus far in this chapter, connoted media produced somewhere other than the US, as relevant to this section it also references world media being construed as strange and unfamiliar. This is why even content made in English-speaking countries like the UK or Australia is routinely remade and notably Hollywoodized: the cast might have been speaking English, but everything else is foreign. In this section I explore the elimination of unfamiliarity as a motivation for transnational remaking. I examine Ameri­ canization manifesting in the neutralizing of foreign elements including language, accents, production values, casting, locations and culture.

148 The Americanized remake Unfamiliar language One of Goscilo’s explanations for the American aversion to foreign cinema is the existence of “an insular and arrogant resistance to foreign languages (reinforced by the status of English as today’s de facto lingua franca), which partly manifests itself in an aversion to subtitles.”143 Nicolas Rapold in The New York Times, also points to language as a key driver of remaking: In the sausage factory of moviemaking the remake is an age-old tempta­ tion. For love or money (but usually money) studios have tapped old stories for different times, fresh stars and ambitious directors, stream­ lining conceits and translating inconvenient foreign languages.144 Goscilo and Rapold’s comments, along with Johnson’s remarks about films that are “too obscure, or in French,” spotlight the most obvious reason that foreign films are considered inaccessible to Americans: they aren’t in Eng­ lish. When international films enter the American market, they are subti­ tled; something Americans are widely deemed to loathe. Elaine Teng opens her New Republic article discussing this: It’s a commonly accepted belief that Americans hate subtitles. Whether this is out of stupidity, laziness, or a belief in our own cultural supremacy is up for dispute, but the box office numbers seem to back it up: Only a handful of foreign films have grossed over $20 million in the American market; Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon the winner of the 2000 Oscar for best foreign film, reigns supreme as the highest-grossing foreign film at $128 million.145 Deborah Hornblow makes the same point in the Los Angeles Times, noting that outside of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, “most Americans have dem­ onstrated that they refuse to pay money for films with subtitles.”146 This supposed subtitle-loathing is alluded to in many snarky commen­ tary pieces. In an article announcing the fantasy-horror series The Returned (2015) – the US remake of the French series Les Revenants (The Returned) (2012–2015) for example – Alex McLevy sarcastically remarks, “Too long have Americans been forced to suffer under the yoke of looking at words on a screen in order to understand what people are saying.”147 Terry Orme in the Salt Lake Tribune makes the same point, describing the aforementioned Point of No Return as “La Femme Nikita for audiences who can’t read.”148 Film theorist James Naremore similarly suggests that “the dumbing-down of U.S. culture is caused not by capitalist businessmen but by teenage con­ sumers with too much money and semiliterates who have an aversion to subtitles.”149 These comments are made by American critics and theorists who are seemingly separating themselves from the mainstream and thus from a perceived low-brow audience. Such criticisms aren’t only expressed

The Americanized remake

149

by Americans; Australian film critic David Stratton presents a similar – and age-related – indictment of films and their intended audiences in his discus­ sion of the 2012 remake of Total Recall: So why bother to remake it? Because it is a dumbed-down version of the story aimed at the computer game generation who seem to care nothing for character or nuance so long as there’s an inordinately high body count.150 (The idea of audiences expecting a higher “body count” is discussed fur­ ther in Chapter 5). While Teng suggests that the subtitle aversion may be slowly abating with audiences becoming more familiar with subtitling as world television con­ tent increasingly becomes available on streaming services,151 nonetheless the assumption of loathing remains potent. Foreign films are thus remade to cater to audiences’s perceived preference for American English-language content. Unfamiliar voices In a Washington Post article about Gracepoint, the production’s showrunner Dan Futterman explains that part of his rationale for remaking the Brit­ ish series lies in neutralizing the accents: “My mom is right down the alley of the BBC America audience and she started watching [Broadchurch] and she’s like, ‘I can’t understand a word they’re saying.’ ”152 Just as foreign lan­ guages are perceived as problematic for American viewers, so too is content from other English-speaking countries where the accents – as well as idioms and cultural references – are deemed incomprehensible. In media theorist Albert Moran’s work on remakes, he spotlights “the industry’s old axiom that U.S. audiences cannot understand English programs involving nonU.S. speakers.”153 Non-American English-language content – from places like Australia, New Zealand and the UK – is thus remade so that the deter­ rence of foreign accents is neutralized. While the notion of “unfamiliar voices” pertains to an aversion to foreign accents, it can also be interpreted as grounded in concern about the absence of certain accents, whereby content without American voices gets rejected. Steemers discusses this idea, observing that “it is assumed that mainstream American audiences will fail to identify with non-American stories or char­ acters . . . unless they contain American voices, opinions and experts.”154 Brian Moylan writing for The Guardian alludes to this as an explanation for the surprising stateside success of the British period-drama Downton Abbey (2010–2015): [T]here was an American, Lady Cora [Elizabeth McGovern], central to the plot. Not only that, but she was the rich savior of the very estate that

150 The Americanized remake we were invested in, the unsung hero of Downton. This gives viewers a new universe to inhabit, which is what all good television does.155 The idea of “repairing” foreign content through the insertion of American voices is identifiable in several remakes. Cultural theorist Karen Hellek­ son presents such an example in her work on Doctor Who (1963–), suggest­ ing that the American bias for American accents explains why, when the series was adapted as Doctor Who: The Movie (1996) – a joint US and UK production – the film “required American travelling companions and an American setting,”156 hence the casting of American actors Daphne Ashbrook and Eric Roberts. Doctor Who: The Movie was an attempt to cultivate American audience interest in a series that for decades they had largely ignored; making it more “American” was deemed essential in this. While concerns about language and accents have, to date, been consid­ ered as barriers to the stateside embrace of world media, as with subtitles, there are indications that the aversion might be abating. The proliferation of streaming services and the distribution of foreign content has changed – if not trampled – the historic distribution barriers in the US, in turn suggest­ ing that stereotypes about “what American audiences like watching” is in flux. Cultural theorist Lisa Emmerton makes this point in her work on the interplay between US and UK television: [A]s the development and distribution of television formats becomes ever more globalized, it becomes exceedingly difficult to say with any degree of certainty that ‘the British prefer this’ or ‘Americans prefer that.’157 Arguably this is something that will become even more relevant as use of streaming services like Netflix – populated with much world media – further expands. Unfamiliar production values Outside of the US, film and television is made with comparatively miniscule budgets, often – as noted earlier – drawing heavily on government subsi­ dies. With American audiences used to content that looks a certain way – as Levy flags, distributors assume that American audiences are “unhappy with a technical quality that falls short of Hollywood standards”158 – oftentimes foreign content simply looks cheap in comparison to what they are used to. In Chapter 1 I proposed that a central rationale for remaking was to produce a bigger and better film which, partly, involves higher production values. The remaking and Americanizing of foreign content can thus be interpreted as bringing material up to the aesthetic standards that Ameri­ cans expect.

The Americanized remake

151

In Richard Corliss’s Time review of the period-drama Sommersby (1993) – the US remake of the French film Le retour de Martin Guerre (The Return of Martin Guerre) (1982) – he comments, “Cunning Hollywood script doctors [have] to approach the European originals not as finished portraits but as sketches in need of coherence, heart, pizzazz.”159 While Corliss doesn’t define pizzazz, for the purposes of this discussion I interpret it as a kind of zhuzhing, notably as related to production values. This idea is apparent in several remake discussions. Harney, for example, makes this point, spot­ lighting that “Hollywoodization is analogous to architectural gentrifica­ tion.”160 Producer Simon Oakes, introduced earlier, references the same idea in his rationale for remaking a Swedish film into something Americans would want to watch: “I think perhaps, again, the roughness of the original is great . . . but I think [the remake will] just have perhaps a little more sheen to it to make it a little more accessible.”161 Oakes argues that in his remake “We’ve been able to ramp that up quite a lot, obviously for budget­ ary reasons.”162 As explored in Chapter 1, adding pizzazz and ramping things up often involve special effects or celebrity casting. Harney spotlights some other tools of Americanization, noting that “outlandish embellishment is an unmistakable symptom of the adaptive process”163 and flagging that “In Hollywood films, the stakes are higher, the ante always upped.”164 Lucius Shepard presents similar ideas in his work on the US horror film The Wicker Man (2006), the remake of the 1973 British film: [I]n recent years we’ve been blessed with an endless succession of films seeking to Americanize (more chases, explosions, CGI; less emphasis on character and story) the work of foreign auteurs and classic and not­ so-classic movies of the past.165 Americanization in these examples centers on making bigger films and thus more expensive productions. It should be noted that, while the opportunity to enhance production values is a key driver of US transnational remaking, spending more money on a slicker production isn’t always considered an enhancement nor – as flagged in Chapter 1 – a guarantee of box office suc­ cess. Film theorist James Chapman examines this in his work on the Doctor Who series and discusses the different budgets for media production in the US compared to the UK: The difference in production values further invokes an idea of Brit­ ishness: the notion that small is beautiful and that British ingenuity is superior to American technological hardware.166 The idea that there is charm in small and quiet productions – as contrasted with the assumed loud and boisterous American content167 – also needs

152 The Americanized remake to be acknowledged. Criticisms of too-slick American (re)productions is apparent in several discussions. A reader of Moylan’s Guardian article about Broadchurch and Gracepoint, for example, expressed concern that Gracepoint would “be too shiny.”168 In Serge Daney’s review of the aforementioned Breathless – the US remake of À bout de souffle (Breathless) – he too refer­ ences sheen, contending, “À bout de soufflé, like all Godard’s films, is an old, dated film. Breathless, like all American films, is already ageless. It has no wrinkles, it’s true, but it never will have.”169 In Kiang’s IndieWire discussion on Takashi Shimizu’s US autoremake of Ju-on (The Grudge), she similarly laments that “the slicker American remake feels like it has too many of the rough edges smoothed down.”170 While on one hand it seems a little absurd to criticize a remake as looking too good (and it’s worth noting that on occa­ sion “slicker” is actually used as a compliment in transnational remake discus­ sions),171 nonetheless, the point made in these examples is that through remaking, the charm of a smaller film – appeal that may have been hinged to ingenuity, rough edges and to a distinct lack of sheen – is lost through the process of Hollywoodization. In Chapter 2, I discuss that sometimes the grittiness of an earlier film can actually be central in its lightning in a bottle success. A variation on this idea is the allegation that to Americanize means to turn something small and beautiful into something flashy and, in turn, trample its charm. In Barry Norman’s review of the aforementioned Point of No Return, for example, he criticizes it as “another example of Hollywood’s unfortunate tendency to remake fine continental fare and turn it sensation­ alist pap.”172 Discussing a proposed US remake of the British drama series All Creatures Great and Small (1978–1990), Robert Hardy – an actor from the first series – expresses concerns about Americanization, worrying, “Will they stay true to the spirit of the original books. . . . Or will they exaggerate the plots and characters and produce something altogether different?”173 The subtext of these comments is that when material gets Americanized, exaggeration and embellishment are inevitable, as is the idea of the remake becoming “more” than was perhaps ever intended. Unfamiliar faces In his work on Hollywoodization, Leitch flags the importance of celebrities in remaking, noting that this “involves casting iconic stars like Burt Reyn­ olds in the 1983 remake of [L’homme qui aimait les femmes] The Man Who Loved Women (1977) or Robin Williams and Nathan Lane in The Birdcage (1996/1978).”174 While this technique of Americanization – of reimagining a foreign film as a US star vehicle (Chapter 1) – transpires wildly, in part it can be construed as indicative of the broader American preoccupation with celebrities and thus functions as a way to create stateside appeal for the reproduction. In her Los Angeles Times article on remakes, Hornblow argues that, “most Americans have demonstrated that they refuse to pay money for films . . . whose stars are not on the cover of this week’s celeb­ rity chronicles.”175 Nathanael Arnold makes a similar point in his work on

The Americanized remake

153

transnational remakes, arguing that “a lack of bankable Hollywood stars can make many foreign films less marketable in the U.S.”176 Such com­ ments – tapping into the American reverence for celebrity and preference for familiar faces – fuels the idea of why, as discussed in Chapter 1, a better film is commonly one that’s filled with famous people. The casting of stars in American remakes serves several purposes. First, as media theorist Simone Knox discusses in her work on the UK comedydrama Shameless (2004–2013) and its US remake (2011–), casting a celebrity can initially be key in getting a project greenlit: the initial attachment of Woody Harrelson to the US Shameless (and then Harrelson being replaced with William H. Macy) gave the project the kind of gravitas needed to first attract funding and then distribution. Second, the casting of celebrities can help enormously in promotion, something Dixon and Foster discuss: [I]f a foreign film, in its original language, is a surprise hit, it almost always gets remade as a big-budget Hollywood film, in English, with American stars replacing the original actors for marquee value alone.177 The starring roles for Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon and Jack Nicholson in The Departed (2006), for example, meant that it didn’t matter that most US audiences were unfamiliar with the film’s Hong Kong predecessor, Mou gaan dou (Infernal Affairs) (2002), because the remake was being sold as an all-star Martin Scorsese Irish gang crime-drama. Media theorist Sue Turnbull discusses these issues as related to Broadchurch and Gracepoint, pointing to the replacement of David Bradley with Nick Nolte in the American series: “the choice of Nolte suggests that the producers were keen to have an instantly recognizable American film actor in the part in order to appeal to the projected audience.”178 Moran discusses something similar transpiring in Cracker (1997–1998), the US remake of the British crime-drama series (1993–1996), where faces more familiar to US audiences were used to enhance the appeal: Another kind of Americanization is related and has to do with screen intertextuality, wherein the U.S. Cracker would become more familiar to U.S. audiences by dint of actors’ faces that had recently appeared in other network series, including The Wire [2002–2008], Homicide: Life on the Street [1993–1999] and The X-Files [1993–2002].179 While the casting of familiar actors helps a remake appeal to mainstream American audiences, there’s also a point to be made about the propensity for American films to cast more conveniently attractive people. This idea is underpinned by the assumption that Americans simply prefer a good-looking cast; something Goscilo observes: An additional ‘divider’ between the cinematic traditions of America and Europe is the premium placed by Hollywood on performers’

154 The Americanized remake physical endowments, to which acting skills are all too often secondary, while the latter are decisive in Europe, where actors and actresses look like ‘normal people’ – absent the silicone implants, face-lifts, and sun­ dry forms of cosmetic surgery – but are trained in the art of embodying an infinite array of onscreen characters.180 Critics often spotlight the ordinariness or even ugliness of actors in French films,181 a criticism rarely extended to US media. Saporito points to the American premium on aesthetics as an explanation for why Broadchurch’s “wonderful Olivia Colman was replaced with the tall, blonde, veryAmerican Anna Gunn” in Gracepoint.182 While Gunn is more familiar to American audiences because of her starring role in the successful drama series Breaking Bad (2008–2013) – and thus her casting fills the brief of pop­ ulating US productions with stateside celebrities – as Saporito flags, Gunn’s appearance is also more in line with the physical appearances expected by American audiences. In my book Sex and Sexuality in Modern Remakes I discuss the tendency for American remakes to have a cast that is more ste­ reotypically attractive than its predecessor: for women, this tends to mean an appearance that is thinner, younger and more feminine.183 This is cer­ tainly something evident in the remake of Broadchurch: David Tennant was seemingly sufficiently attractive to reprise his role in Gracepoint (albeit with a makeover)184 – attributable perhaps to “hotness” being less of a burden on men – but the less conventionally attractive Olivia Colman seemingly needed to be replaced. Communications theorist Jeffrey Griffin points to a similar aesthetics-based Americanization as transpiring in the sitcom The Office (2005–2013) – the US remake of the British series (2001–2003) – comparing the two receptionists, Dawn (Lucy Davis) from the UK version and Pam (Jenna Fischer) from the US, and noting, “Although each recep­ tionist is attractive, Pam has a much slimmer figure than her British coun­ terpart, thus conforming more to the American beauty ideal.”185 The American predisposition toward celebrities – and the casting, more broadly, of beautiful people – forms part of the criticisms of American remakes whereby the small-scale, low-key appeal of a foreign production is often lost through reproduction, notably so when involving celebrity cast­ ing and the insertion of “glamour” into a narrative, a point that was appar­ ent in fan concern about the, then forthcoming US remake (2008–2009) of the British mystery series Life on Mars (2006–2007): What makes [Life of Mars] so special is that it feels so real, the charac­ ters are believable because they are ordinary. What worries me most is the casting. There is too much emphasis on the image of the show – by that I mean casting impossibly beautiful people. Hollywood is image obsessed – there is no-one who looks normal – a lot of the women are stick thin, the men are buffed to perfection. Life on Mars is gritty and

The Americanized remake

155

realistic – I would hate to see someone who looks like Brad Pitt or Paris Hilton cast in the re-make – it would destroy all credibility.186 Among the casting decisions made in the US Life on Mars, some stereotypi­ cal moves did transpire. Marcovitch, for example, compared the casting of Liz White as Annie in the British series to the casting of Gretchen Mol in the remake, noting that the new Annie “is also much more attractive by Hollywood standards.”187 In such examples, Americanization is thus hinged to adherence to a stereotypical aesthetic attractiveness. While the casting of celebrities helps an American remake endear itself to an American audience, it can also serve other functions. In Knox’s work on US adaptations of UK content, she flags that casting not only celebrities but, notably, actors of esteem – her examples include the aforementioned William H. Macy in the US Shameless and Kevin Spacey in the US House of Cards (2013–2018), the remake of the British series (1990) – can help to counter criticisms of the US version as being somehow lesser: Their casting bestows additional textual identity to the adaptation, less­ ening the role of the British progenitor as the discursive point of ref­ erence: Shameless USA becomes less ‘the US version of Shameless’ and more ‘the William H. Macy version of Shameless’, just as Netflix’s House of Cards becomes less ‘the American House of Cards’ and more ‘the Kevin Spacey House of Cards.’188 Casting esteemed actors helps elevate the status of a remake, distinguishing it from other reproductions and positioning it as a more prestigious pro­ duction. It is, therefore, probably no surprise that the remakes that become well-regarded – that perform positively both with critics and audiences – are also ones featuring personnel considered to be at the top of their game. The Oscar-winning all-star The Departed mentioned earlier is one example, others include: • The crime-drama The Maltese Falcon (1931) remade in 1941, with John Huston directing, and Humphrey Bogart starring. • The melodrama Imitation of Life (1934) remade in 1959, with Douglas Sirk directing, and Lana Turner starring. • Hitchcock remade his own film The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934) in the US (1956), with James Stewart and Doris Day starring. • The crime-drama Scarface (1932) remade in 1983, with Brian De Palma directing, and Al Pacino starring. • The heist film Ocean’s 11 (1960) had an all-star cast including Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin and Sammy Davis Jr. The film was remade in 2001, with Steven Soderbergh directing and George Clooney, Brad Pitt and Julia Roberts starring. It was remade again in the sex-swapped

156 The Americanized remake

• • • • •

Ocean’s 8, again, with an all-star cast including Cate Blanchett and San­ dra Bullock. Yôjinbô (Yojimbo) (1961) remade in the US as A Fistful of Dollars (1964), with Sergio Leone directing, and Clint Eastwood starring. The thriller Cape Fear (1962) remade in 1991, with Martin Scorsese directing, and Robert De Niro and Jessica Lange starring. Director Michael Mann remade his made-for-television drama L.A. Takedown (1989) as a feature film, Heat (1995), with Al Pacino and Rob­ ert De Niro starring. The Swedish thriller Män som hatar kvinnor (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) (2009) was remade in the US as The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011), with Daniel Craig starring. The Chilean drama Gloria (2013) was remade in the US as Gloria Bell (2018), with Julianne Moore and John Turturro starring.

While celebrities help to attract an audience, populating a remake with quality actors and having an esteemed director at the helm notably helps to distance a remake from the accusation that the film is somehow lesser or weaker than its predecessor. Unfamiliar places As part of neutralizing the unfamiliar, Americanization can involve substi­ tuting locations that seem foreign with US ones. In discussing why Holly­ wood often remakes successful British productions, for example, Saporito proposes, “using the stories and characters in an American setting in hopes that people will better identify with the stories.”189 While this idea applies to transatlantic remakes, it is of course equally applicable to transnational remakes more broadly. In Oakes’s comments about Let Me In, he explains that the remake’s setting was changed from Sweden to Colorado because it would be “very accessible to a wider audience.”190 While undoubtedly such a relocation is motivated by making content more accessible to American audiences, oftentimes this is also part of making a production look slicker whereby a more desirable location means an American one. Steemers discusses a 1999 report commissioned by the UK Department of Culture, Media and Sport that surveyed British screen output. One of the critical findings was UK drama identified as being “too dark; too slow, unattractive, too gritty or socio-political . . . with distasteful characters, storylines and down-market lifestyles.”191 The point of the report was to flag that much British media output was deemed unsuitable for export to countries like the US, in light of the presumed American preference for content that is otherwise. One of the undercurrents relevant to this discussion is the belief that Americans generally prefer presentations that are more glamourous. This can involve more upbeat storylines or casting more attractive people as discussed

The Americanized remake

157

earlier, alternatively, it can manifest in “better” or more impressive filming locations. Lavigne discusses this idea in her work on Viva Laughlin (2007), the US remake of the British musical-mystery Blackpool (2001): “not only are the people in Viva Laughlin ‘prettier’, but the series more generally revolves around upper class settings.”192 Whereas Blackpool was set in the often bleak British beachside town of the title, Viva Laughlin was filmed in Nevada: while not quite Las Vegas, the location nonetheless couldn’t be described as bleak. While American locations are often selected for transnational remakes, this isn’t always the case. With the objective of global distribution, generic locations are sometimes preferred over those with too much local specific­ ity. Resultantly, an American production doesn’t always necessitate a US location. The American production The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011), for example, was mostly filmed in Europe attributable to the Swedish setting of its literary source material. The film’s use of celebrities, compounded with American production values and English dialogue, helped to make the film seem suitably – and palatably – American or, at least, American-enough. An extension of this is material remade by American studios in other places whereby the location is intended to be construed as America (or at least a neutral place and not not-America). In recent years many American stu­ dios have taken advantage of tax incentives offered by countries like Can­ ada,193 Australia194 and New Zealand195 to undertake film production there. Despite the fact that such material is filmed outside of the US, oftentimes other factors still make these productions seem US-enough: Toronto, for example, has repeatedly served as a stand-in for New York on screen.196 By downplaying the Canadian-ness of Toronto and amplifying its generic big city qualities, the film can look suitably American. Such an idea provides a template for how American transnational remakes can succeed in the US: by eliminating much of their aesthetic foreignness. It is worth acknowledging that not every remake does a wholesale Amer­ icanizing of a predecessor, and not all elements get made over in every production. The US remake of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, for example, maintained the Swedish setting, the Swedish character and place names and the European filming locations. Many of the supporting cast members were also Swedish actors. This is largely attributable to the enormous popu­ larity of the novel and the fact that audiences likely would have revolted against too many deviations. Casting local talent in those US reproductions can also give an air of authenticity and help to distinguish a new production from the typical remake dross. Mazdon underscores this idea by pointing to US remakes like the aforementioned Let Me In and the crime-drama series Wallander (2008–2016) – the remake of the Swedish series (2005–2014) – to flag that such remakes “appeared to reveal rather than disguise their Scandinavian origins.”197 Further, even on occasions when the US remake is Americanized substantially more than The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was, sometimes nods to the culture of the predecessor material can be detected.

158 The Americanized remake When the Danish series Forbrydelsen (The Killing) (2007–2012) was remade in the US as The Killing (2011–2014), for example, the Swedish actor Joel Kinnaman was cast. Retention of or insertion of cultural details from the nation (or region) of the predecessor can be construed as centered on film­ makers exhibiting cognizance of both the trendiness of things like ScandiNoir and Nordic Noir (Chapter 6) as well as contemporary concerns about whitewashing (as explored in the next section). Retaining authentic details and casting local talent can help to diffuse. Unfamiliar culture Just as foreign media content often looks different – thus why it gets remade in the US using American (or American-like) filming locations – foreign media can also feel different. The success, therefore, of American transna­ tional remakes can be about both reducing the imprint of the predeces­ sor’s nationality while simultaneously inserting sufficient American cultural references to enable a reproduction to seem suitably domestic.198 Steemers discusses a range of US remakes of British sitcoms – All in the Family (1971– 1979)/Till Death Us Do Part (1965–1975); Sanford and Son (1972–1977)/Steptoe and Son (1962–1974); Three’s Company (1976–1984)/Man About the House (1973–1976) – and flags that key in their success was “any hint of ‘British­ ness’ being disguised.”199 Wong alludes to similar ideas in her discussion of the business model of transnational remakes, recounting the story of a Miramax executive discussing Asian horror movies and telling colleagues that “these stories can work in any culture.” As Wong narrates, “Cultural specificities are erased as if they never existed.”200 While removing things that mark content as non-American seems per­ fectly predictable for many US remakes – as Lavigne comments in her dis­ cussion on the Blackpool remake Viva Laughlin, “It is only to be expected that an American network would have wanted to produce a recognizable American show”201 – such remakes are nonetheless often criticized for their elimination of foreign content in apparent furtherance of an imperialist agenda. In Bui’s discussion on the proposed US adaptation of Kimi no na wa (Your Name), she highlights the difficulties in striking a balance between fidelity to the original – to, notably, honoring the culture of the predecessor – and catering to a new audience: “it’s a tricky line to walk in lieu of a history of bad anime remakes and recent controversies around whitewashing.”202 Bui points to the live-action Ghost in the Shell (2017) – the US remake of the Japanese animation Kôkaku Kidôtai (Ghost in the Shell) (1995) – as a high-profile “whitewashed” American remake. Dragonball: Evolution (2009) – the US adaptation of the Japanese animation Dragon Ball (1986–1989) – is another instance of a transnational remake that has also been criticized as having been “whitewashed.”203 Concerns about whitewashing led to Dis­ ney making concerted attempts to cast diverse actors in Aladdin (2019), the live-action remake of the 1992 animation as well as in the live-action

The Americanized remake

159

remake of the animation Mulan (1998/2020). During the writing of this book, African American actress Halle Bailey was announced as having been cast as Ariel in a new Disney production of the live-action remake of The Little Mermaid.204 While the criticism of US remakes of non-Western media is a topic that has received extensive attention in recent years as the world becomes more concerned with representations of the under-represented and the margin­ alized, this issue isn’t only explained by whitewashing even if, of course, such examples are open to such an interpretation. A key driver of US repro­ ductions of foreign content is a belief that Americans can produce better films with actors who are, simply, more familiar to audiences. These more “familiar” actors tend to be white, meaning that often when a foreign film is adapted in the US it is recast with American talent, and the highest profile talent in the US tends to be white. This certainly does not remove race from the equation – and, of course, highlights the racism rampant in the industry that underpins this familiarity bias – but it also spotlights that it is likely that economics is a more potent motive than a political agenda: studios make what they think will sell. Another aspect of this is the perceived burden of mak­ ing a film seem distinctly local and, notably, mainstream. Quoted earlier was producer Roy Lee who discussed this idea as relevant to the transnational remakes of non-US countries: When something is adapted, it’s different than when there are char­ acters written with a specific race that are being changed. . . . Chinese remakes of Korean films aren’t expected to have Korean actors. There was a Japanese remake [2009] of Sideways [2004], and no one would complain that it doesn’t star a Caucasian person.205 While the counter argument to this is that the size and dominance of Hollywood – not to mention the racial diversity of its population – means that comparing its operations to the film industry in Japan is unreasonable, nonetheless, it highlights Lee’s point quoted earlier about people – the world over – wanting their own local version of content, thus explaining why US content often looks the way it does. Looking American often means looking white and while this is, of course, a racist idea, the racism is more complicated than it just being an example of whitewashing, even if – in practice – this is what we see on screen. An interesting irony exists whereby on one hand American transnational remakes dilute foreign content to make it more accessible, on the other hand their quasi-exoticness can actually be a selling point, discussed further in Chapter 6.

The misnomer of “Americanization” In the Introduction of this book I briefly discuss the complexity of con­ cepts like originality in the context of filmmaking, notably given that every

160 The Americanized remake filmmaker is inspired – consciously or subconsciously – by the lifetime of media that they’ve consumed. This idea of filmmakers being impacted by a complex tangle of influences is just as important in the context of culture. In this chapter, the idea of an American remake has been defined, simply, as a remake made by US studios. While such a definition has been useful in the context of the points made thus far in this chapter, it is worth pausing to problematize this a little bit. The question of what or who is an “American filmmaker” is an impor­ tant consideration. A range of filmmakers who have made films in the US – notably, as relevant to this discussion, remakes – and who are regularly categorized as American filmmakers also happen to be foreign-born: • Otto Preminger – whose works include the romcom The Fan (1949), which was another incarnation of Oscar Wilde’s play Lady Windermere’s Fan (1892) (first filmed in the UK in 1916), as well as the film-noir The 13th Letter (1951), a remake of the French film Le Corbeau (The Raven) (1943) – was born in Austria-Hungry. • Alfred Hitchcock – who remade his own film The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934) in 1956 in the US – was born in the UK. • Fritz Lang – whose works include the aforementioned US remake Scar­ let Street, as well as Human Desire (1954), the US remake of the French film La Bête Humaine (The Human Beast) (1938) – was born in Vienna. • Ernst Lubitsch – whose works include Bluebeard’s Eighth Wife (1938), a remake of the 1923 silent film – was born in Germany. • Billy Wilder – whose works include the thriller Five Graves to Cairo (1943), a remake of Hotel Imperial (1927/1939); the romcom Some Like It Hot (1959), a remake of the West German film Fanfaren der Liebe (Fan­ fares of Love) (1951) (itself a remake of the French film Fanfare d’Amour [Fanfare of Love] [1935]); The Front Page (1974), a remake of the 1931 film and the comedy Buddy Buddy (1981), a remake of the French film L’emmerdeur (A Pain in the Ass) (1973) – was born in Austria-Hungry. • Fred Zinnemann – whose works include the thriller High Noon (1952), considered a remake of the Western The Virginian (1929) – was born in Austria-Hungry. • William Wyler – whose works include remaking his own drama These Three (1936) as The Children’s Hour (1961), as well as The Letter (1940), a remake of the 1929 film and Ben-Hur (1959) a remake of Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ (1925) – was born in Germany. • Ang Lee – whose work includes Sense and Sensibility (1995), an adap­ tation of the 1811 Jane Austen novel, first filmed in 1971, and Hulk (2003), a film adaptation of the television series The Incredible Hulk (1978–1982) – was born in Taiwan. These examples demonstrate that a wide range of “American remakes” were in fact made by directors who weren’t American-born and who, in many

The Americanized remake

161

cases, had earlier filmmaking careers in other countries. As Forrest and Koos flag, particularly during the “golden age,” “Hollywood had become during the Classic period an international cinematic community with the arrival of foreign artists and technicians.”206 Mazdon similarly highlights European directors moving to the US, and thus, while working within the conventions of Hollywood, “many directors used styles developed in Europe to expand and enhance the dominant aesthetics.”207 As Mazdon observes, “This system of exchange complicated the perception of the remake as a straightforward American product.”208 The point here is that there has never been a time when an American film wasn’t, in some way, influenced by the cinema of other places. This situation compels us to consider the extent to which “American remakes” are influenced by a director’s birth country, the local media consumed in their homeland and the films they made prior to arrival in the US. While this point is an obvious one in the case of filmmak­ ers born abroad, it is equally a consideration for US-born directors whose identity is shaped by a second culture. If we think, for example, about American auteurs like Martin Scorsese (who, amongst his oeuvre, include remakes such as the aforementioned Cape Fear [1991] and The Departed) or Francis Ford Coppola (who directed The Conversation [1974] considered a remake of Blow-Up [1966]), both directors are American-born, of Italian descent. Cecil B. DeMille (who remade three of his own films; including one title three times: The Golden Chance [1915]/Forbidden Fruit [1921]; The Ten Commandments [1923/1956]; The Squaw Man [1914/1918/1931]) and Steven Spielberg (whose film Always [1989] is considered a remake of A Guy Named Joe [1943] and who remade War of the Worlds (1953) in 2005 are both Jewish. While these directors are American, their work is also influ­ enced by a second culture, in turn problematizing the notion that there is a singular idea of who is an American filmmaker, what an American film looks like, and notably what an Americanized remake actually is. The rhetoric of remakes means that American transnational reproduc­ tions, as discussed, are often framed as parasitical and as though the remake process is linear: i.e., that American films exclusively take from other cul­ tures. Such an idea severely glosses over filmmaking realities. In Mazdon’s work on American remakes of French films, she discusses the French film Un éléphant ça trompe énormément (An Elephant Can Be Extremely Deceptive) (1976) and its US remake The Woman in Red (1984). Mazdon spotlights that when the French “original” was released, it had been accused of being a rip­ off of The Seven Year Itch (1955).209 Similarly, Sergio Leone’s Western A Fistful of Dollars (1964) is commonly understood as – and is discussed through­ out this book as being – a remake of Akira Kurosawa’s samurai film Yôjinbô (Yojimbo) (1961). Such an claim, however, often overlooks that both Leone and Kurosawa admit to having been influenced by the American film-noir The Glass Key (1942).210 These examples serve to illustrate the longstand­ ing globalization of film and highlight that the power balance is compli­ cated and is never just a situation of American directors “stealing” from

162 The Americanized remake their foreign counterparts but that the reverse commonly occurs with crosspollination having long been the norm. Collaborative ventures While a theme in this chapter is the perception of a kind of American cultural imperialism, viewing this situation as exclusively one of the US as powerful and another nation being trounced upon isn’t the full story. In film theorist Constantine Verevis’s work on remakes, he flags that “some producers of (foreign) originals, realizing the financial gains to be made, are actively involved in the production of US remakes.”211 Many produc­ ers of foreign content recognize that profit (as well as things like interna­ tional exposure and a bigger audience) is possible through international reproductions. Filmmakers also recognize this themselves with a range of international directors remaking their own films stateside. Already men­ tioned in this chapter has been Alfred Hitchcock, Michael Haneke, George Sluizer, Géla Babluani, Takashi Shimizu and Boaz Davidson each making American remakes of their own foreign films; many other directors have done the same: • British director Wilfred Noy remade his silent film The Lost Chord (1917) in the US in 1925. • Viennese director Josef von Sternberg directed the German-language Der blaue Engel (The Blue Angel) (1930) at the same time as he directed the English-language version. • Ukrainian director Anatole Litvak remade his French drama L’équipage (Flight into Darkness) (1935) in the US as The Woman I Love (1937). • French director Roger Vadim remade the romance Et Dieu . . . créa la femme (And God Created Woman) (1956) in the US as And God Created Woman (1988). • French director Francis Veber remade his crime-comedy Les Fugitifs (The Fugitives) (1986) in the US as Three Fugitives (1989). • French director Lisa Azuelos remade her romcom Lol (2008) in the US as LOL (2012). • Chinese director John Woo remade his crime-comedy Zong heng si hai (Once a Thief) (1991) in the US as the television movie Once a Thief (1996). • Danish director Ole Bornedal remade his thriller Nattevagten (Night­ watch) (1994) in the US as Nightwatch (1997). • Hong Kong director Peter Ho-Sun Chan remade his romance Tian mi mi Comrades: Almost a Love Story (1996) in the US as The Love Letter (1999). • French director Jean-Marie Poiré remade his comedy-fantasy Les visi­ teurs (The Visitors) (1993) in the US as Just Visiting (2001).

The Americanized remake

163

• Thai directors Danny Pang and Oxide Chun Pang remade their crimedrama Bangkok Dangerous (2000) with the same name in the US in 2008. • Dutch director Dick Maas remade his horror film De Lift (The Lift) (1983) in the US as Down (2001). • Indian director Vidhu Vinod Chopra remade his thriller Parinda (Bird) (1989) in the US as Broken Horses (2015). • Belgian director Erik Van Looy remade his crime-drama Loft (2008) in the US (2014). • Israeli director Boaz Davidson remade his film Eskimo Limon (Lemon Popsicle) (1978) in the US as The Last American Virgin (1982). • Canadian director Ken Scott remade his French-language Canadian film Starbuck (2011) in the US as Delivery Man (2013). • Mexican director Emilio Fernández remade his drama Enamorada (1946) in the US as The Torch (1950). • Chilean director Patricio Valladares remade his horror film En las afueras de la ciudad (Hidden in the Woods) (2012) in the US as Hidden in the Woods (2014). • Chilean director Sebastián Lelio remade his drama Gloria (2013) in the US as Gloria Bell (2018). While the motives for autoremakes are discussed further in Chapter 5, a foreign director remaking their own film in the US can serve as continuity between the two productions, lending esteem and gravitas to the second production. Park observes that the return of the same director can offset the kind of concerns that plague remakes in general, especially so transna­ tional productions: When the director of the original is allowed to direct the remake, the remake practice is predominantly considered a cinematic form of respect, even by fans dedicated to the superiority of the original. It vir­ tually eliminates hostile responses.212 Global financing also blurs the idea of national media content, and it is common – arguably increasingly so – to see a remake co-produced by sev­ eral studios from different countries: the Swedish sci-fi series Äkta människor (Real Humans) (2012–2014), for example, was remade as the joint US/UK/ Swedish production Humans (2015–2018): Matador was one of the produc­ tion companies involved in both series. Steemers discusses such joint pro­ ductions likely becoming even more common: The impact of globalized television markets and a more intense com­ petitive environment had undoubtedly increased pressures to reduce original program investment by instigating budget cuts and increasing co-production activity, particularly with America.213

164 The Americanized remake When personnel (Chapter 3) or production companies are involved in both versions, a kind of continuity is created helping a remake ingratiate itself to a new audience, notably so in the face of the widespread negative rhetoric around remakes. It’s also worth noting that in a globalized media environment, multinational productions can help to attract the financing needed to remake the material, as well as enabling more than one country to profit from a (re)production. In the final section of this chapter I briefly explore transnational remakes produced in nations other than the US.

Non-American transnational remakes The stereotype – fueled by many of the issues discussed already in this chap­ ter – is that it is Americans who take international content, remake it and export it around the world. While this is indeed a common practice because of the size and reach of Hollywood, it is absolutely not exclusively a US phe­ nomenon. In the final section of this chapter I briefly discuss transnational remaking happening outside of the US. Throughout this book, I have discussed many US remakes of French films, something that has received extensive academic attention.214 Buck­ ing the much-maligned cliché of Americans pilfering from French master­ pieces is French studios remaking US films. While not a common practice, it has nonetheless happened on several occasions: • The crime-drama Forfaiture (The Cheat) (1937) is a French remake of the US silent film The Cheat (1915). • The drama Le patriote (The Patriot) (1938) is a French remake of the American silent film The Patriot (1928). • The comedy Quand te tues-tu? (When Do You Commit Suicide?) (1953) is a French remake of the American film When Do You Commit Suicide? (1931). • The crime-drama Le journal d’une femme de chambre (Diary of a Cham­ bermaid) (1964) – remade in France with the same title in 2015 – is a remake of the American film The Diary of a Chambermaid (1946), both adaptations of Octave Mirbeau’s 1900 novel. • The comedy Jo (1971) is a French remake of the American film The Gazebo (1959). • The crime-drama Le casse (The Burglars) (1971) is a French remake of the American film The Burglar (1957). • The crime-drama Nid de guêpes (The Nest) (2002) is a French remake of the American film Assault on Precinct 13 (1976). • The crime-drama De battre mon coeur s’est arrêté (The Beat That My Heart Skipped) (2005) is a French remake of the American film Fingers (1978).

The Americanized remake

165

• The mystery La dame dans l’auto avec des lunettes et un fusil (The Lady in the Car with Glasses and a Gun) (2015) is a French remake of the Ameri­ can film The Lady in the Car with Glasses and a Gun (1970). These remakes are noteworthy given that the French film industry is so often revered for its artistry, and thus it seems ironic that they might want to remake US material – even if, as discussed in this chapter, in practice France produces bad and trashy films too, just like every other country. Reproduction of US films also happens elsewhere. The term “Indianiza­ tion,” for example, describes the remaking of Hollywood films in India: cultural theorist Raman Minhas examines how this involves “the copying of American movie plots and transposing them on the traditional Bollywood template. Thus, original, creative works in Hollywood are pillaged.”215 Attri­ bution in such cases is almost never given.216 Film scholar Elizabeth Raw­ itsch specifically examines the many Bollywood adaptions of Frank Capra films;217 and Krämer spotlights that for Indian audiences their transnational remakes often seem entirely new to their audiences: “Indian filmmakers can safely assume that most Western films will be unfamiliar to almost all but the most cinephile members of their Indian audiences.”218 Griffin presents sim­ ilar ideas in his discussion of Japanese remakes of Hollywood films (such as the aforementioned Saidoweizu [Sideways] [2009], the Japanese incarnation of the US drama Sideways [2004]),219 and media theorist Patricia Aufder­ heide flags that “Some of the most popular Hong Kong films have been remakes, takeoffs or simply steals of popular American movies.”220 Just as there exist American remakes of English language content, Ameri­ can content is also remade by other English-speaking countries. While this is common for game shows and reality television – where concepts are quickly, often simultaneously, remade all over the world – it occurs for other genres too. Just as the US has remade many UK sitcoms as discussed earlier, the same has occurred in reverse with several British incarnations of American sitcoms: • • • • • •

The Golden Girls (1985–1992) remade as Brighton Belles (1993–1994). Good Times (1974–1979) remade as The Fosters (1976–1977). Mad About You (1992–1999) remade as Loved By You (1997–1998). Married . . . with Children (1987–2002) remade as Married for Life (1996). That ’70s Show (1998–2006) remade as Days Like These (1999). Who’s the Boss? (1984–1992) remade as The Upper Hand (1990–1996).

The Australians have also remade several US films: • The romance Casablanca (1942) remade as Far East (1982). • The film-noir D.O.A. (1949) remade as Color Me Dead (1969). • The Western Shane (1953) undergoing a sex-swap to be remade as Shame (1988).

166 The Americanized remake • The adventure-drama Kangaroo (1952) remade in 1986. • The thriller Duel (1971) remade as Roadgames (1981). While not common, there are also a few examples of Canadians remaking US content, for example: • The thriller Taken (2008) remade as Inescapable (2012). • The indie sci-fi film Phasma Ex Machina (2010) remade as Our House (2018). • The sitcom Catastrophe (2015–) remade as a French-language produc­ tion (2017–). The Irish have also done it: the horror film Pet Sematary (1989) remade as Wake Wood (2009) is one example, as is the Christmas drama Three Wise Women (2010) as a modern, gender-swapped take on Dickens’s A Christmas Carol (1843), filmed many times since the first silent adaption, Scrooge, or, Marley’s Ghost (1901). While, of course, Hollywood transnational remakes garner much atten­ tion because of their big budgets and because, as a superpower, the US will always be understood as the powerful cultural hegemon and thus what they do with foreign content will always be interesting and worth scrutinizing, they are not the only country interested in making local versions of popular foreign material nor the only country whose population enjoy local produc­ tions of good stories. This chapter focused on American transnational remakes, examining the impetus to Americanize and also the criticisms of such a practice. In Chap­ ter 5 the discussion moves to the creative justifications for revisiting past film and television productions.

Notes 1 Bui, 2018. 2 The phrase “yet another American remake” has been used in several articles on US remakes of Asian horror (Zacharek, 2005; Howard and Pickle, 2006). The proposed US adaptation of the British crime-drama Luther (2010-) was lamented with the same phrase (Welch, 2015), ditto Point of No Return (1993) American remake of the French thriller La Femme Nikita (1990) (Siskel, 1993). 3 A Cape Times review of Pulse (2006), the US remake of the Japanese horror film Kairo (Pulse) (2001), describes it as a “pathetic Americanisation” (“Horror film remake a bit of a yawn”, 2006). 4 Herbert, 2009, 143. 5 Communications theorists Carlen Lavigne and Heather Marcovitch flag that “the concept of Americanization may be challenging to define – the United States, after all, contains many cultural groups, and Americanization may also be conflated with globalization, modernization, or economic imperialism” (Lav­ igne and Marcovitch, 2011, xii-xiii). 6 Leavis, 2006, 14.

The Americanized remake 7 8 9 10 11

12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

167

Manne, 2006, 377.

Moïsi, 2009, 9.

Chandler and Cronin, 2002, 52.

Street-Porter, 2005. Boaz Davidson was asked about the difference between making films in the US and elsewhere and alludes to different cultural positions on auteurism: “Well I would say that in Europe and in Israel the movies are much more director orientated. What I mean by that is the director has his canvas and he is doing his painting and it is not about who will be in the movie and who will be star in it. Of course, all those things are important, but the commerciality of it is not the most important part. I’m saying it carefully, but there is much more respect to the director of the movie. Here it is the industry. In a smaller country you work more on your gut feeling or the gut feelings of the producer or the direc­ tor. Here in America you do research and screen tests and you see what posters work and what trailers work and we didn’t have money for all of that” (in “My Interview with Film Director, Boaz Davidson”, 2012). Jeff Saporito, writing for ScreenPrism, explains the differences between US and UK film production: “American television is all about money. It is produced by major studios with tremendous budgets and can afford to do everything big, every time. British shows, by comparison, are still typically produced with what one might consider shoestring budgets, at least in comparison to American series. . . . British television is still predominantly public. Everyone pays licens­ ing fees for television in Britain. Because of that, British TV is largely funded through public money, not advertising. Obviously, this is the exact opposite of how television works in America. It’s a for-profit business” (Saporito, 2016). Kirk, 2016. Vanderschelden, 2016, 89–94. For a further discussion of the similarities and differences between Americaniza­ tion and Hollywoodization see Leitch, 2019. Lavigne and Marcovitch, 2011, xiv. “Should Hollywood leave classic films alone?”, 2010. Janusonis, 1988. Larsen, 2002. Arnold, 2002. Kerr, 2002. Mesce Jr., 2007, 275. Tookey, 2013. Newitz, 2008. Tookey, 2012. Eggert, 2017. Brustein, 1975. McNamara, 2014. Dault, 2005. Mathijs, 2004, 178. Bruce, 2018. Horwitz, 2000. Fidgeon, 2003. “ ‘Alfie’ remake lacking; ‘Incredibles’ soars; DVD Review”, 2005. Martin, 2008. Koehler, 2006. Ryan, 2015. Tookey, 2011. Edelstein, 2011.

168 The Americanized remake 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59

60

61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73

Bradshaw, 2014. Terry, 2014. “Original vs Remake”, 2018. Accomando, 2017. Chase, 2019. “And they call it Muppet love . . .: A clever plot and great songs ensure Kermit and Miss Piggy are as captivating as ever”, 2012. Musetto, 2011b. In Jagernauth, 2012. Cultural theorist Chris Walton discusses an “anti-American cultural chauvinism that has long been latent in Europe” that dictates that “American audiences are less cultivated, less intelligent than European ones” (Walton, 2009, 317). Film critic A.O. Scott raises similar concerns about American audiences, positing that American media output has led to the “mass infantilization of audiences” (Scott, 2009). Freeman, 2005. Street-Porter, 2005. Perkins, 2015, 785. Yabroff, 2010. Leitch, 2019. In “American audiences are unsophisticated, director says”, 1993. Anderson, 1962, 56. Forrest and Koos, 2002, 8. White, 2003, 192. White, 2003, 192. This is a topic that film critic A.O. Scott examines when discussing the limitations of box office data: “Commercial success may represent the public’s embrace of a piece of creative work, or it may just represent the vindication of a marketing strategy. In bottom-line terms, this is a distinction without a difference. A movie that people will go and see, almost as if they had no choice, is a safer busi­ ness proposition than one they may have to both thinking about” (Scott, 2009). American film critic Roger Ebert also alludes to this idea: “If I mention the cli­ ché ‘the dumbing-down of America,’ it’s only because there’s no way around it. And this dumbing-down seems more pronounced among younger Americans” (Ebert, 2009). See also Carson, 2009. Josh Terry discusses the dumbing-down of Brick Mansions (2014) – the US remake of the French film Banlieue 13 (District B13) (2004) – and suggests “So maybe we only have ourselves to blame.” While Terry doesn’t expand on this idea, one interpretation is Americans get dumbed-down remakes because they keep buying tickets to them (Terry, 2014). In Steemers, 2004, 116. Goscilo, 2014, 59. Levy, 1999, 33. In Nicholson, 2013. Edwards, 2012. Wilson, 2018. Rosewarne, 2019a. Leitch, 2019. Rajan, 2012. Rosewarne, 2019a. Rosewarne, 2019a. McGowan, 2012, 67. Ryan, 2015.

The Americanized remake 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82

83 84

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108

169

Ryan, 2015.

Bruce, 2018.

D’Angelo, 2008.

Anderson, 1962, 55.

Anderson, 1962, 55.

Barlaam, 2011, 132.

Woods, 2016, 243.

Bruce, 2018.

Wyck Godfrey, the producer of Martyrs (2015) – the US remake of the 2008

French film – identifies that the film needed to be rewritten for US audiences: “I love that movie, [although] I think it’s not remake-able in its form for an American audience” (in Hunter, 2010). Wong, 2012, 29. Film theorist Myoungsook Park contends that the exportation of US values also transpires through transnational remaking: “The current remake practice further serves a political function; it is an example of cultural imperialism. Not only do Hollywood films generate extensive global revenue . . . but they also act as commercials promoting other popular American products through their content. Of course, the product they must clearly promote is the illusory ideal­ ism of the American Dream itself, the capitalistic price in style and material successes that Hollywood itself has came to represent” (Park, 2009, 108). Moïsi, 2009.

Smith and Verevis, 2017, 7.

Forrest and Koos, 2002, 14.

Film theorist Lucy Mazdon argues that accusations of cultural imperialism

“ignore both the history of the remake and the history of exchange and inter­ pretation between the two cinema industries” (Mazdon, 2000, 19). Heinze and Krämer, 2015, 7. Mazdon, 2000, 67. Crawford, 2016, 112. Singer, 2008. Rosewarne, 2019a. Lukas and Marmysz, 2009b, 3. Mera, 2009, 2. Evans and Harper, 2017, 181. In the context of the French film industry, for example, film theorist Lucy Mazdon argues that, “The sale of rights for a remake is frequently superior to the money the film could have made through distribution in the United States and thus revenue will subsequently enable further French film production” (Mazdon, 2000, 25). Ross, 2011. A similar idea is encapsulated in the Vanity Fair headline about a possible remake of Clueless (1995): “So Clueless is Getting a Remake, Whether You Like it or Not” (Desta, 2018). “Norway’s hit show ‘Skam’ to be remade for US audience”, 2016. Sardar and Davies, 2002; McPherson and Krastev, 2007; Friedman, 2012. Zeitchik, 2019. Elsaesser, 2005, 300. Lavigne and Marcovitch, 2011, ix. Forrest and Koos, 2002, 8. Lavigne and Marcovitch, 2011, x. Harney, 2002, 73. Stenport and Traylor, 2015, 80.

170 The Americanized remake 109 Dixon and Foster, 2011, 63–64. 110 In Moylan, 2014b. 111 Film theorists Owen Evans and Graeme Harper observe that “often challeng­ ing films have been repackaged in less demanding ways in order to reach pop­ ular audiences” (Evans and Harper, 2017, 181). 112 Goscilo, 2014, 59–60. 113 Bramesco, 2019. 114 Twitchell, 1997, 119. 115 Strecker, 2013. 116 Rosewarne, 2019a. 117 Twitchell, 1997, 10. 118 Twitchell, 1997, 120. 119 Bruce, 2018. 120 Kiang, Lyttelton and Perez, 2013. 121 Dixon and Foster, 2011, 63. 122 Varndell, 2014. 123 “Boaz Davidson: The Last American Virgin”, 2015. 124 “The ending of ‘The Last American Virgin’ (1982) dir. Boaz Davidson”, 2013. 125 Twitchell, 1997, 120. 126 Welsch, 2002, 129. 127 Johnson, 2009b. 128 In Moylan, 2014b. 129 Saporito, 2016. 130 In Stuever, 2014. 131 In Dixon and Foster, 2011, 65. 132 In Park, 2009, 117. 133 In Jeffries, 2008. 134 Film theorist Lucy Mazdon argues that “French cinematic production is much more likely to reach a wide American audience via the remake than in its initial form” (Mazdon, 2000, 24). 135 Crawford, 2016, 112. 136 Steemers, 2004. 137 In Moylan, 2014b. 138 In Tseng, 2017. 139 Media theorist Jeanette Steemers flags that the US only imports 2% of its broadcast hours, which is, she argues, “negligible in terms of direct audience impact” (Steemers, 2011, 2). 140 Steemers flags that “American broadcasters are resistant to foreign sourced programming like no other nation” (Steemers, 2004, 144). 141 Media theorists Colin Hoskins, Stuart McFadyen and Adam Finn argue that international audiences “are not put off by subtitling and dubbing in the way that American audiences are” (Hoskins, McFadyen and Finn, 2004, 74). 142 Forrest and Koos, 2002, 10–11. 143 Goscilo, 2014, 59. 144 Rapold, 2011. 145 Teng, 2016. 146 Hornblow, 2002. 147 McLevy, 2015. 148 Orme, 1993a. 149 Naremore, 2014, 292. 150 Stratton, 2012. 151 Teng, for example, names television dramas like Narcos (2015–2017) and The Americans (2013–2018) – both with large amounts of non-English dialogue – and

The Americanized remake

152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171

172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181

182 183 184

185 186 187

171

notes “It’s been television, cinema’s long-shunted sibling, which has made greater strides in normalizing subtitles for Americans in recent years” (Teng, 2016). In Stuever, 2014. Moran, 2011, 47. Steemers, 2011, 5. Moylan, 2014a. Hellekson, 2011, 160. Emmerton, 2011, 104. Levy, 1999, 33. Corliss, 1993a, 69. Harney, 2002, 74. In Dixon and Foster, 2011, 64. In Bray, 2010. Harney, 2002, 74. Harney, 2002, 75. Shepard, 2007, 124 Chapman, 2006, 8. Richard Corliss alludes to this idea in his Time review of the drama Passion Fish (1992): “Humongous generalization of the week: Hollywood movies are mas­ culine; foreign and independent films are feminine” (Corliss, 1993b, 69). In Moylan, 2014b. In Mazdon, 2000, 85. Kiang, Lyttelton and Perez, 2013. In a New York Daily News review of The Italian Job (2003), the US remake of the 1969 British title, the film was described as “a slicker, faster paced, hightech upgrade” (in “Critics: Italian Job remake ‘an improvement’ ”, 2003). In a review of the thriller The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011) – the US remake of the Swedish Män som hatar kvinnor (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) (2009) – the new film is praised as “not only slicker and more stylish than the 2009 movie, but also easier to get a handle on” (Edwards, 2012). In Kendall, 2017, 217. Hardy, 2015. Leitch, 2019. Hornblow, 2002. Arnold, 2017. In Dixon and Gwendolyn Foster, 2011, 63. Turnbull, 2015, 712. Moran, 2011, 47. Goscilo, 2014, 59–60. In film writer Manuela Lazic’s discussion of the comedy The Upside (2017) – the US remake of the French film Intouchables (The Untouchables) (2011) – she makes the point, “The French stars are generally regular-looking (borderline ugly) guys, instead of handsome studs” (Lazic, 2019). Saporito, 2016. Rosewarne, 2019a. Media theorist Sue Turnbull observes, “in the process of adapting to the differ­ ent location, Tennant not only adopted an American accent, but also a ‘slick makeover’ including a better haircut (with a redder tint), and a slightly closer shave” (Turnbull, 2015, 712). Griffin, 2008, 157. In Mills, 2012, 138. Marcovitch, 2011, 179.

172 The Americanized remake 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198

199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216

217 218 219 220

Knox, 2018, 311–312. Saporito, 2016. In Bray, 2010. In Steemers, 2011, 9. Lavigne, 2011, 63. Epstein, 2006; Kloke, 2017. Boland, 2018. “New Zealand, Home to Multiple Big Franchises, Sweetens the Deal With 25% Cash Grant”, 2018. Toth, 2015. Mazdon, 2017, 32. Alexandra Beeden and Joost de Bruin, in their work on the British sitcom The Office (2001–2003) and its US remake (2005–2013), argue that for sitcoms to be successful, they “must address issues of national specificity” (Beeden and de Bruin, 2010, 17). Steemers, 2011, 4. Wong, 2012, 25. Lavigne, 2011, 56. Bui, 2018. Escobal, 2018. Rosewarne, 2019c. In Tseng, 2017. Forrest and Koos, 2002, 9. Mazdon, 2000, 19–20. Mazdon, 2000, 20. Mazdon, 2000, 93. Lowe, 2016. Verevis, 2006, 16. Park, 2009, 116–117. Steemers, 2011, 11. Durham, 1998; Mazdon, 2000. Minhas, 2008, 221. While the idea of Indian studios remaking US films is a cliché, the same thing sometimes happens in the reverse. Discussed elsewhere in this book are two examples: the thriller Parinda (Bird) (1989) remade in the US as Broken Horses (2015) and the Indian thriller A Wednesday! (2008) remade in the US as A Com­ mon Man (2013). Another example is the Indian thriller Darr (Fear) (1993) remade in the US as Fear (1996). Rawitsch, 2015. Krämer, 2015, 89–90. Griffin, 2014. Aufderheide, 1998, 192.

5

The creative remake

Throughout this book I have referenced criticisms of remakes where review­ ers and academics repeatedly ask, “why bother?” as though a remake – by its very nature – has failed to justify its existence. As film theorist Laura Mee flags, remakes are “generally held in the lowest esteem, seen as shameless rip offs, or pointless copies of cherished classics.”1 Such reproductions are consistently derided as unnecessary or redundant, with a key underpinning of the negativity being that remakes seldom grow the medium – as film theo­ rists Anna Westerståhl Stenport and Garrett Traylor observe, remakes are often regarded as having been made for “commercial gain rather than as a culturally generative practice”2 – and thus are routinely dismissed as mere cash-grabs (Chapter 2). With the remake often derided as a facsimile, knock-off, carbon copy or pale imitation of a greater and more “original” film,3 much of the dis­ course around remaking centers on forgery: that the new production is just a duplicate, something mechanized and rote rather than anything creative. While remakes in general are frequently criticized as eschewing innovation, shot-for-shot do-overs get disproportionately condemned for this, viewed as doing little more than repeating a predecessor: the adventure-drama The Prisoner of Zenda (1937/1952), is one example of a shot-for-shot remake, ditto the thriller Psycho (1960/1998). I begin this chapter by unpacking some of the accusations made about remakes as uncreative and as somehow signifying Hollywood’s dearth of ideas. The focus of this chapter, however, is on demonstrating that – contrary to the extensive negative discourse – remakes can absolutely be creative. Very few remakes actually ever take the aforementioned shot-for-shot approach, and even those that do are never mere duplicates: Gus Van Sant’s 1998 Psycho, for example, might have copied nearly all of the dialogue and camera shots from Alfred Hitchcock’s 1960 production, but it’s still not the same film: not only do decades separate the two movies but a different filmmaker made them, thus meaning a divergent approach is inevitable. In his remake, Van Sant manages – as I have argued elsewhere4 – to produce a remake that’s more sexual than the 1960 film and which notably incorporates a queer sensibility. The point here is that even a film that overtly aims to be

174 The creative remake a shot-for-shot reproduction still manages creativity, whereby a director’s unique vision injects artistry. Also explored in this chapter are specific tech­ niques used by filmmakers to reimagine a predecessor, including genreswapping and narrative expansion. In this chapter I also unpack the often-unquestioned “good” of creativ­ ity. In accusing a remake of being unoriginal, the undercurrent is that the new film lacks the positive, aspirational properties associated: as explored in Chapter 2, highly creative and highly original films are, in fact, financially very risky. Directors who remake their own films are also discussed, and the range of justifications for the why of these autoremake productions are scoped.

Hollywood’s lack of ideas Recurrent in discussions on remaking is the argument that Hollywood has run out of ideas: that the industry keeps remaking itself because the crea­ tivity cupboard is bare. In Jeremy Kay’s Guardian article, for example, he laments that “there are few sorrier manifestations of this dearth of ideas than the remake.”5 Christopher Stevens in the Daily Mail argues a simi­ lar case: “in the past decade, 90 per cent of the most popular films have been based on earlier movies, comic books or novels. It seems no one in Hollywood now has an original notion in their heads.”6 Cultural theorist Thomas Parham argues this same case as specifically related to Disney’s recent slew of live-action reproductions: “The live-action remakes of ani­ mated classics seem to indicate a dearth of creativity and originality at the Walt Disney Company.”7 Susan Dunne in the Hartford Courant takes a bird’s eye approach, commenting on the cliché of critics lamenting absent creativ­ ity: “This flurry of remakes has pundits in an uproar over the supposed lack of imagination in Hollywood, and they have taken to lumping remakes into the same creative cesspool as Pauly Shore movies.”8 Film writer Nick Pinker­ ton makes the same point, observing, “The only thing as inevitable as Hol­ lywood’s recycling of properties is the steady influx of think-pieces decrying Hollywood recycling as a symptom of industry-wide timidity and a failure of imagination.”9 The same observations have been made in a range of schol­ arly discussions.10 Cultural theorists Amanda Klein and R. Barton Palmer nominate the 2012 film Battleship – based on the Hasbro board game – as an often-cited example of Hollywood’s creative bankruptcy, identifying that soon after the film’s announcement, “the blogsphere exploded with incre­ dulity over commercial cinema’s seeming inability to come up with original ideas for motion pictures.”11 Films such as Tomorrowland (2015) – based, in part, on Tomorrowland at Disneyland – the animated Trolls (2016), which was inspired by the toy or Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001) and The Angry Birds Movie (2016), both based on computer games, are further examples of films frequently lamented as being produced by an industry that is creatively exhausted (as opposed to being viewed – more pragmatically – as addicted to the new and the novel, wherever it can be found).

The creative remake

175

The same claims of Hollywood’s ideas shortage are articulated by industry personnel. When a reboot of the supernatural series Charmed (1998–2006) was announced in 2013 – a project that took until 2018 to eventuate – star of the first series, Rose McGowan, criticized, “They really are running out of ideas in Hollywood.”12 Horror director Jef Delman similarly argues that “the rush to remake perpetuates creative laziness.”13 Former Hollywood Pic­ tures chief, Ricardo Mestres, observes that “[t]here’s such a paucity of good material, that we sometimes – too quickly – look to material that’s worked well in the past,”14 and producer Arnold Kopelson posits that, “There’s a shortage of good projects. . . . You see some of these great [old] movies, with well-thought-out story lines, and they offer a very fertile area.”15 The former head of Columbia Pictures, David Puttnam – while corroborating with these ideas – considers such risk-aversion as an inevitable consequence of the economics of Hollywood: “Not many directors [push for reboots] – it tends to be the producers and the distributors. But it does illustrate a lack of imagination on the part of the producers.”16 Claims of a supposed ideas shortage are also repeatedly levelled in remake reviews: • The action-drama The Getaway (1994) – the remake of the 1972 film – as a demonstration of “the dearth of originality infecting Hollywood.”17 • The action-drama Barb Wire (1996) as being Casablanca (1942) remade “for these, the learning-impaired, culturally challenged, emotionally constipated, creativity-starved ’90s.”18 • The crime-drama Sleuth (2007) – the remake of the 1972 British film – as symptomatic of “a complete lack of creativity in Hollywood.”19 • The horror film Poltergeist (2015) – the remake of the 1982 film – as “a product of a tired Hollywood formula: a remake that lacks creativity, hoping to trade on an established brand.”20 • The comedy The Hustle (2019) – the remake of Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (1988), itself a remake of Bedtime Story (1964) – “isn’t creative, it isn’t original and it just isn’t funny.”21 The subtext to such conjecture is a belief that studios should be pursuing “new” material because – according to popular wisdom – only new ideas are creative and only creative ideas are worthwhile. Aside from the obvious impossibility of agreeing on a definition of what constitutes “new” in the context of storytelling (discussed further in the Introduction) – or even, for that matter, what “creativity” looks like – it also overlooks that some of the most significant contributions to film history have been made by com­ pletely unoriginal stories. The Wizard of Oz (1939) is a perfect illustration of this: the story, based on the works of Frank Baum, was first filmed in 1925. The 1939 reproduction, however, is the masterpiece celebrated today and thus demonstrates that i) when a film is critically acclaimed or beloved by audiences, no one really cares – or even remembers – that it’s a remake and ii) that remakes can, of course, be beloved as well as creative and highly

176 The creative remake innovative.22 Daniel Drezner writing in The Washington Post in 2018 makes this point, countering accusations of a supposed ideas shortage and assert­ ing that “for all the laments about the lack of creativity, let me suggest that one of the most original hours of television last year came from a reboot of Twin Peaks [1990–1991].”23 Drezner flags that simply deriding remakes and reboots as a production category – without assessing each item of its own accord – means that the many creative exceptions to the bad remake cliché are often overlooked. Commentators frame the uncreative accusation in several ways, frequently dipping into the pool of negative remake rhetoric. One of the most popular examples of this is the accusation that material has been “warmed over.” Film writer Jack Horsley, for example, uses this expression in his work on horror: Lately, this remake-mania has taken on a decidedly ironic thrust, as Hollywood begins to remake once-low budget independent ‘sleeper’ hits such as Dawn of the Dead [1978], The Texas Chainsaw Massacre [1974] and Assault on Precinct 13 [1976] as slick, expensive, ultraviolent Hol­ lywood spectacles, expressly for young audiences who have probably never heard of the original films and hence are unaware of being served last week’s leftovers warmed over.24 A similar point is made by communications theorist Robin Coleman, also in work on horror: Thus far, the twenty-first century is providing a fairly clear answer about its next move: the horror genre is not reaching for the new; instead it is digging back through past horror catalogues to present old horror warmed over.25 Warmed over is an allegation also levelled in many remake reviews: • The romcom Born Yesterday (1993), the remake of the 1950 film, as “warmed-over fare.”26 • The British drama Peter’s Friends (1992) as “The Big Chill [1983] warmed over.”27 • The political thriller The Manchurian Candidate (2004) – a remake of the 1962 film – as “tast[ing] warmed-over.”28 • The comedy Death at a Funeral (2010) as being a “warmed over” remake of the 2007 film.29 • The comedy The Hangover II (2011) as “basically a warmed-over remake of The Hangover [2009].”30 • The horror film Carrie (2013) as a “warmed-over” remake of the 1976 film.31 • The action-drama Chappie (2015) as a “little more than a warmed-over RoboCop [1987] remake.”32

The creative remake

177

The warmed-over allegation alludes not only to a lack of creativity but, more so, to a distinct lack of freshness, if not overt staleness. By using a phrase more commonly associated with food, the negative subtext is that audiences are being served up a “reheated” version of something they’ve consumed before,33 in turn implying that they are getting something less new and less good and paving the way for audiences to potentially feel insulted by such releases (Chapter 2). (The food analogy here can be likened to remakes thought of, more positively, as comfort food or guilty pleasures as discussed in Chapter 3.) A variation on the warmed-over criticism is the claim that remakes are half­ hearted, as articulated in a range of reviews: • The comedy-crime film Docks of New Orleans (1948) as “a half-hearted remake” of Mr. Wong, Detective (1938).34 • The musical-drama Grease 2 (1982) as a “half-hearted remake” of Grease (1978).35 • The crime-drama The Getaway (1994) as “a half-hearted remake” of the 1972 film.36 • The romcom Sabrina (1995) as a “half-hearted remake” of the 1954 film.37 • The romcom The Heartbreak Kid (2007) as “a half-hearted remake” of the 1972 film.38 • The superhero film Spider-Man 3 (2007) as “more like a half-hearted remake of the original [Spider-Man (2002)] than a sequel.”39 • The drama Everybody’s Fine (2009) as a “half-hearted remake” of the Ital­ ian film Stanno tutti bene (Everybody’s Fine) (1990).40 • One Missed Call (2008) as a “half-hearted remake” of the 2003 Japanese horror film Chakushin ari (One Missed Call).”41 • The comedy Arthur (2011) as a “half-hearted remake” of the 1981 film.42 • The comedy Delivery Man (2013) as “a half-hearted remake” of the French-language Canadian film Starbuck (2011).43 • The crime-drama Sleepless (2017) as a “half-hearted remake” of the French film Nuit blanche (Sleepless Night) (2011).44 While half-hearted is not defined in these reviews, we can assume that the criticism suggests that a new title is just going through the motions, something Edward Porter in The Sunday Times overtly accuses The Lion King (2019) – the remake of the 1994 animation – of doing.45 Such criticisms are evidence of remakes as a production category being dismissed as patently com­ mercial, as lacking in creativity and originality and as not being culturally generative. While these accusations are part of the enduring art/money clash discussed in Chapter 2, worth flagging is that Hollywood films do have an overtly money-making motive and that sometimes directors do take on remake projects purely for cash. When director Howard Hawks, for exam­ ple, was asked why he remade his screwball comedy Ball of Fire (1941) as the musical A Song is Born (1948), he answered simply: “Because I got $25,000

178 The creative remake a week, that’s why.”46 That said, while money might have been Hawks’s key motivation, this doesn’t mean that the end result is completely void of crea­ tivity: Hawks, after all, is often regarded as a great American auteur and his films considered culturally important.47 Expensive remakes like The Wizard of Oz (1939), The Ten Commandments (1956), Cleopatra (1963) and King Kong (2005) are examples of remakes that were each overtly commercial – that were blockbusters in terms of cost and success – and which also made a sub­ stantial contribution to the canon of American cinema, be it through direc­ tion, special effects, all-star casting or cinematography. Criticisms about absent – or diluted – artistry and originality are unique to screen media: in most other areas of cultural output, reproductions and reimaginings are not merely predictable but are completely expected. WriterDirector Nancy Meyers addresses this in her comments about her romcom You’ve Got Mail (1998), a remake of The Shop Around the Corner (1940): No one ever does a story about why there are so many revivals on Broad­ way. . . . So why not [remake] a classic. . . . It’s challenging to make it work again, and not lose what people loved about it.48 Arts reporter J. Kelly Nestruck makes the same point and alludes to the same medium double standard: “When the Stratford Festival puts on The Tempest for the umpteenth time, no one ever accuses them of lazily relying on tested formulas and condescending to audiences with familiar mate­ rial.”49 As flagged in the Introduction, film and television tend to be criti­ cized in ways that theater or music isn’t. In part this is attributable to screen media always having been considered as comparatively low-brow and as dis­ tinctly commercial and as pandering to audiences while other media are – albeit falsely – imagined as immune to this. As related to live performance, it’s simply assumed that each new director brings something new to a per­ formance, no matter how shopworn the production. The exact same thing, of course, does happen in film and television: each director and showrunner brings creativity to a remake, be it through their unique vision, new tech­ nology, new casting, a reimagined setting or developing a new way for an old story to speak to a new audience. The argument that Hollywood is less creative today – or that it has some­ how “recently” ran out of ideas – is premised on a nostalgic notion of a glory days when Hollywood was imagined as constantly churning out original and critically-acclaimed work, something encapsulated in a lament made by Paul Berton in The London Free Press: There was a time, long ago, when storytelling was an original art. Every­ thing was new. Today, most stories are a variation on a theme. Nowhere is this more obvious than in Hollywood, where everything appears to be a cheap copy, or a cleverly disguised one.50

The creative remake

179

Berton’s version of history is, of course, laughably romanticized. From Hol­ lywood’s very beginning, rather than an endless procession of wonderful new stories, studios were, in fact, producing adaptations of classic literature and stage plays, and, as explored in Chapter 1, with every advent of new technology it was remaking its old properties; as Terry Orme observes in The Salt Lake Tribune, “Hollywood has never been the oracle of originality. It is a place that lives by sequels, remakes and rip-offs.”51 Hollywood has always remade content while at the same time producing new(er) material. The American film canon is populated by both new stories and new versions of old ones. Two key ideas undergird criticisms about a supposed lack of creativity: i) that creativity is something easily recognized and, ii) as explored in the next section, that creativity is inherently good and worth pursuing.

The “good” of creativity and originality When critics bemoan the absence of creativity and originality, very rarely are such terms defined. As discussed in the Introduction, “originality” is a fraught topic in media studies, with some scholars arguing that everything is, in some way, derivative.52 Creativity is also problematic in light of its inher­ ent subjectivity: while I, for example, interpret the 1998 Psycho as doing something creative with the 1960 material, the film was a box office failure, was widely panned in reviews and got condemned by some as “an absurd waste of celluloid.”53 For me, Van Sant’s tweaks were sufficient to constitute a “creative expression,” but for others, such subtle alterations weren’t enough for it to be deemed as anything more than a Hitchcock imposter. Madison Wilde in Burning Tree magazine reflects such criticism, positing that, “To be creative, something must be both constructed and original. Using these definitions, shot-for-shot assembled films are art but they are not necessar­ ily creative.”54 While many critics contend that shot-for-shot remakes don’t constitute a creative expression – and, curiously, posit an art vs. creativity distinction that I’m unconvinced can so easily be made – scholars like liter­ ary theorist Linda Hutcheon mount the counter case, arguing that even material intended to overtly replicate a predecessor can still be creative: Imitation of great works of art, in particular, was not intended only to capitalize on the prestige and authority of the ancients or even to offer a pedagogical model . . . though it did both. It was also a form of creativity. . . . Like classical imitation, adaptation also is not slavish copying; it is a process of making the adapted material as one’s own. In both, the novelty is in what one does with the other text.55 It is no surprise that slavish is also a criticism regularly extended to remakes, whereby too much adherence to source material is condemned. Godfrey

180 The creative remake Cheshire, writing for Variety, for example, describes the 1998 Psycho as “a faithful-unto-slavish remake,”56 and slavish is discussed in Chapter 1 as one of several very common criticisms directed at remakes. While I believe that the Psycho remake exhibits creativity through a range of small but nonetheless artistic updates,57 for others, creativity necessitates a more wholesale reimagining. In his Post and Courier discussion of the film releases of 2005 for example, Bill Thompson observes: So far, the new year in film looks suspiciously like a clone of 2004, or any other year of the past 10 or so robotic ones. Which is to say Holly­ wood is on autopilot, with more remakes and sequels, more adaptations of books and TV series. In other words, a singular lack of innovation beyond the industry’s technical wizardry.58 As discussed in Chapter 1, technical “wizardry” is a common way that a remake demonstrates creativity (and also justifies its existence). The enor­ mous technological innovations made in Hollywood in the years between the 1925 and 1939 films, for example, enabled the Wizard of Oz remake to be perceived as so original and creative and, ultimately, remain so beloved. While I, of course, absolutely consider deployment of new technology as creative, it needs to be acknowledged that the use of such wizardry – particularly so when computers are involved, as apparent in the recent slew of Disney live-action remakes – leaves such productions open to criticism as mass-produced and without a true auteur. Elsewhere, for example, I dis­ cuss the tendency for computers to be considered as soulless.59 My hunch is, that even without an acknowledgment of technophobia on the part of reviewers, use of terms like soulless – as occurred in reviews for Disney liveaction remakes like Beauty and the Beast (2017),60 Aladdin (2019),61 The Lion King (2019)62 and Dumbo (2019)63 – is hinged to the use of CGI and oldfashioned notions of what art and creativity looks like. Not only are concepts like creativity or originality subjective, but even if there is unanimous agreement about the unique artistry of a given remake, this doesn’t necessarily mean the production is well-received. Tim Bur­ ton’s live-action Alice in Wonderland (2010) – a reimagining of the 1951 animation – is such an example. While performing well at the box office, the film had mixed reviews, whereby the creativity was, intriguingly, part of the perceived problem. Alison Willmore writing for Buzzfeed, for example, describes the Burton film as an “an eye-popping if soulless action-adventure­ empowerment flick.”64 A review from the Montreal Gazette similarly observes “violence and death are just the beginning of the creative remake as Burton gives the film an adult sensibility that doesn’t quite work.”65 Alice in Wonderland is illustrative of a film being widely considered as “creative” but also being unsuccessful, at least by certain measures. Similar conjecture surrounded the aforementioned Tomorrowland. In advance of its release, Dave Hollis, Disney’s Executive Vice President for Theatrical

The creative remake

181

Distribution touted, “In a summer of sequels, we hold out a lot of hope that wildly underserved families will find Tomorrowland and enjoy its original­ ity.”66 This, however, did not occur, and Tomorrowland flopped: evidently “originality” – at least in this package – was insufficient to tantalize audi­ ences. In Jake Wilson’s discussion of the same film in The Age, he spot­ lights the irony of how Hollywood is “constantly taken to task for its lack of originality,” and yet at the box office a film like Jurassic World (2015) – the remake of Jurassic Park (1993) – is a hit, and yet the comparatively original Tomorrowland flops.67 A case for creativity and originality can be made – a film might even be lauded as culturally generative – and yet it still bombs. From a studio perspective, therefore, creativity and originality aren’t always good, certainly not when – as examined in Chapter 2 – they are often very risky endeavors. The box office failure of Tomorrowland problematizes the simplistic notion that things that are “original” are inherently positive. As a Mega Nerd Media article about remaking reminds us: “Original things are not inher­ ently good”68 and that “Truthfully, we love familiar stories, we just fetishize originality.”69 Film theorist Michael Harney also makes this point: It is a post-Romantic emphasis on originality and creativity – themselves concepts formed in reaction to capitalism, commercialization and commodification – that explains, in large measure, the high-culture critics’ categorical aesthetic prejudice against the remake.70 New and original ideas are not only no guarantee of a quality film but – as discussed in Chapter 2 – for a range of reasons such films are more risky and thus are less likely to be the ones that major studios produce, hence studio predisposition toward the safer bet of remakes. The negative rhetoric surrounding remakes means that such productions are invariably compared to their predecessor and deemed worse. Even on occasions when a remake is praised, the rarity of such a situation is often highlighted. This scenario is well-illustrated by a review of the musicaldrama Footloose (2011), the remake of the 1984 film: “while it does seem blasphemous, this remake is pretty good.”71 Such an appraisal – and spe­ cifically the reference to blasphemy – only makes sense because the dis­ course around remakes is so negative and audiences are primed to assume that such (re)productions will be substandard. This Footloose remake review nonetheless highlights, on occasions remakes are occasionally considered as being better, as explored in the next section.

The better remakes Of the many clichés apparent in the discourse around remakes, an endur­ ing one is how the “original” is always better. Be it because of the notion of diminishing returns (Chapter 2) or the emotional tug of nostalgia

182 The creative remake (Chapter 3), a driver behind accusations of remakes being pointless, redun­ dant and tepid is that they are perceived as somehow less than their predeces­ sor. While most films – remakes or not – tend to divide critics, if not outright disappoint them, on occasions a remake gets lauded as better. Film theo­ rist James Limbacher nominates the film-noir The Maltese Falcon (1941) – the remake of the 1931 film – as an example of a film that breaks the rule that “the remake is never as good as the original.”72 Brian D. Johnson, writ­ ing for Maclean’s, names the Western The Magnificent Seven (1960) – the remake of the Japanese samurai film Shichinin no samurai (Seven Samurai) (1954) – as better.73 Ben Childs in The Guardian argues that “Some of the greatest Hollywood movies of the modern era are remakes,” and lists The Departed (2006), the remake of the Hong Kong film Mou gaan dou (Infer­ nal Affairs) (2002), along with the 1986 remake of the sci-fi film The Fly (1958), the 2010 remake of the Western True Grit (1969) and the sci-fi film The Thing (1982), the remake of The Thing from Another World (1951) as examples.74 Remakes deemed to exceed its predecessor are also praised in a range of reviews: • The mystery Tess of the Storm Country (1932) – a remake of material filmed in 1914 and 1922 – as “far superior to the original.”75 • The melodrama A Star is Born (1954) – a remake of the 1937 film – as “one of the few examples where the remake improves on the original.”76 • The sci-fi film Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) – a remake of the 1956 film – as “a rare beast indeed: a remake that is better than the original.”77 • The aforementioned sci-fi film The Thing (1982) as “exceed[ing] the original.”78 • The made-for-television thriller I Saw What You Did (1988) – a remake of the 1965 film – as a “rare remake that improves on the original.”79 • The thriller Cape Fear (1991) as a film that “improves on the ’62 original.”80 • The crime-drama The Getaway (1994) – the remake of the 1972 film – as “taking a good film and improving upon it.”81 • The thriller A Perfect Murder (1998) – the remake of Dial M For Murder (1954) – as “a rare thing in cinema, a film that improves on a Hitchcock original.”82 • The family-comedy The Parent Trap (1998) – the remake of the 1961 film – as “good before. It’s better now”83 and that it “improves on the original in every way.”84 • The heist-drama The Thomas Crown Affair (1999) – the remake of the 1968 film – as “almost unique in that it is actually better than the original.”85 • The animated Fantasia: 2000 (1999) – the remake of the 1940 film – as one that “improves on the original.”86

The creative remake

183

• The heist-drama Ocean’s 11 (2001) – the remake of the 1960 film – as “improv[ing] on the original.”87 • The thriller Insomnia (2002) – the remake of the 1997 Norwegian film – as “[a] rare case of an American remake that actually improves on a European movie.”88 • The sci-fi film Solaris (2002) – the remake of the Russian film Solyaris (Solaris) (1968/1972) – as being “the most implausible Hollywood remake of all time . . . and for once, improv[ing] on the original.”89 • The family-adventure Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) – a remake of Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971) – as “a remake that improves on the original,”90 and a film that “exceeds the original in every way.”91 • The Western 3:10 To Yuma (2007) – the remake of the 1957 film – as “that rarest of cinema offerings: the remake that exceeds the original.”92 • The aforementioned Western True Grit (2010) as “often exceed[ing] the original.”93 • The political-drama House of Cards (2013–2018) – the remake of the 1990 British series – as “a rare example of a US remake that improves on the original.”94 • The aforementioned horror film Poltergeist (2015) as being “among the infrequent and satisfying cases in which the remake of an especially memorable film equals or exceeds the original.”95 • The live-action The Jungle Book (2016) – the remake of the 1967 Dis­ ney animation – as “the rare remake that actually improves on the original.”96 • The adventure film Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) – the remake of the 1995 film – as a “rare, long-gestating follow-up that improves on the original.”97 • The comedy The Upside (2017) – the US remake of the French film The Intouchables (2011) – as “one of those rare re-dos that improves on the original.”98 Several points need to be made about such reviews and these apparent com­ pliments. First, it’s important to note that sometimes in critical discussions of remakes, better is used to describe a film with closer adherence to an origi­ nal source, for example a novel.99 This, for example, is specifically relevant to examples like Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory and its remake Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, both adaptations of the 1964 Roald Dahl book. While fidelity is not a concern of this volume, it nonetheless needs to be flagged that faithfulness in adaptation has, historically, been considered as essential in a good or better remake. Second, not all first films are good. As discussed as different junctures in this book, often “better” remakes are just reimaginings of bad predecessors. This is an important point because a bet­ ter remake doesn’t necessarily constitute a good film, rather, just one that isn’t quite as horrendous as the earlier one. Third, it’s important to note

184 The creative remake that for every positive review of a film it’s effortless to source a condemn­ ing one: this is evident in one of the reviews cited earlier deeming the 2015 Poltergeist as lacking in creativity while another lauds it as a superior remake. The aforementioned 1939 The Wizard of Oz exists as a thoroughly atypical example of film that has near universal acclaim: almost all films divide audi­ ences and reviewers. It is, therefore, impossible to provide a definitive list of “better” remakes, despite, of course, many such lists existing in the popu­ lar press.100 Fourth, in the list of better remakes provided earlier, reviewers repeatedly draw attention to the rarity of a remake exceeding its predeces­ sor, in turn, through complimenting an outlier success story, the rhetoric of remakes as normally worse than their predecessors is underscored. In these examples, while a general appraisal is made about a remake being better than its source material, in most instances the why of this is not explained. In the sections that follow, I propose a series of ways that bet­ ter can be achieved, beginning with, as alluded, the starting point of a not particularly great predecessor.

The fixer-upper In film theorist Daniel Varndell’s discussion of remakes, he observes that such films are “often criticized for trying to update originals, often prompt­ ing the disapproving question, ‘if it isn’t broken, why (try to) fix it?’ ”101 Deborah Hornblow in the Los Angeles Times similarly asks, “If there were no serious flaws in the original film, the question presents itself: Why bother?”102 Media writer Alan Sepinwall also asks this question: “You cannot make a better Psycho than Alfred Hitchcock did, so why bother?”103 Director Neil LaBute also appears cognizant of the don’t fix what isn’t broken mantra, as evident in his comments about The Wicker Man (2006), his US remake of the 1973 British horror film: I think there’s legitimately a way to tell this story again and that’s what we’re doing . . . but I completely understand that there are people who will never give it a chance because it’s changing something they feel isn’t broken.104 This allegation of “fixing what isn’t broken” is repeated in a range of reviews. In Peter Howell’s Toronto Star review of RoboCop (2014), for example – the remake of the 1987 film – he argues that the film “tries to fix what wasn’t bro­ ken.”105 In Orme’s review of the action-drama Desperate Hours (1990) – the remake of the 1955 film – he alleges that the remake “supports the axiom that you can’t fix what isn’t broken.”106 Michael Druxman also explores this in his book on remakes, suggesting that a reason why so many remakes fail is because a director “might decide to ‘improve’ the original story when he should have left well alone.”107 These comments point to the fact that, while it might be preferable for a remake to improve upon its predecessor

The creative remake

185

(Chapter 1), in practice this isn’t always possible; that “fixing” is subjective and, in practice, it often just means making it different or in LaBute’s word­ ing: changing it. Further, improvement isn’t always the primary rationale for remaking anyway. Tom Pollock, the former chairman of Universal Pictures, was quoted in a 1994 Los Angeles Times article, alluding to this: There’s no reason to ever remake a Preston Sturges comedy. . . . It’s not possible to do it better. Yet hardly a week goes by that someone doesn’t approach me with a remake of [Sturges’] Sullivan’s Travels [1941].108 Pollock’s point – aligned with those made by Hornblow and Sepinwall earlier – operates from the perspective that oftentimes remakes aren’t actu­ ally made with any overt creative intent (or at least not exclusively with crea­ tive intent): that, as explored in Chapter 2, money and repeating success may be the true drivers. Nevertheless, in scholarly and also popular press discussions of remaking, there is an idealized creative remake that makes a solid contribution to the American film canon, for example The Wizard of Oz (1939) mentioned earlier. If the maxim is to resist fixing what isn’t broken – that doing so only results in a lesser film – arguably then, the better remake is one that doesn’t try to improve on a revered film but, rather, takes a bad one and makes it better. Producer Samuel Goldwyn is quoted as having once said, “It’s a mistake to do remakes of hits because you can’t improve on them. It’s better to take films that didn’t do so well, and make them better.”109 Director John Huston makes a similar claim, contending: “Don’t remake good movies. Remake bad ones!”110 The logic behind remaking bad films – or, more broadly, films that weren’t critically acclaimed or which flew under the radar (often because they were small budget or foreign films)111 – means that a filmmaker has somewhere to go with the material because the starting point is so lackluster. The worse the predecessor is, therefore, arguably the better the chance of a successful remake. This could, thus, be an explanation for the enormous success of Wonder Woman (2017). While the 2017 film was a remake – with the story first appearing on screen via a 1974 television movie – the prede­ cessor is scarcely remembered. The low prestige of the originary material, therefore, means that the 2017 remake could position itself as a wholesale reinvention and get construed by audiences as a new film and, notably, get assessed – and championed! – of its own merit, rather than be compared to a much-loved predecessor. Remaking bad or unknown films notably helps to circumvent the Ghostbusters (2016)-type backlash from fans who – as I’ve argued elsewhere – often “exhibit possessive ownership” over a predeces­ sor.112 If a film was bad or largely unseen, there likely won’t be an obsessive fan base passionately airing grievances about a remake on social media. Remaking with the intent to fix is widely observed. John Lee Mahin, for example, who wrote the screenplays for both Red Dust (1932) and its remake Mogambo (1953), claimed that Mogambo “gave me the opportunity

186 The creative remake to fix my mistakes . . . to ‘polish’ what I’d done on the first version.”113 The opportunity to fix things is alluded to in several discussions. Questioning why Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) has been remade so many times, literature scholar Neil Badmington proposes that the remakes “appear to be motivated, in part, by a desire ‘to get it right.’ ”114 Christian Knöppler in his discussion of the 1978 remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers also flags the notion of fixing errors, noting that the remake “not only intensifies the horror generated by the scenario and individual scenes, it also corrects plot inconsistencies, and even seeks to rectify the much maligned studio deci­ sion to amend the ending of the 1956 film.”115 The notion of fixing errors becomes particularly relevant for remakes that are literary adaptations: in many cases filmmakers justify their do-over by claiming the new production is a more authentic adaptation that’s closer to the text (in turn, fidelity is positioned as important). Huston, for exam­ ple, justified his 1956 Moby Dick – based on the Hermann Melville story (1851), previously filmed as The Sea Beast (1926) and Moby Dick (1930) – by claiming “I tried to make the picture very faithful to the spirit of Melville’s novel.”116 In such a claim, Huston attempts to frame his film as the definitive screen adaptation, unlike the apparent looser predecessors. Another aspect of “fixing” a narrative has to do with repairing some of the outdated politics of older films that would seem anachronistic at best or, more commonly, problematic to modern, woke audiences.117 Amanda Hess, writing for The New York Times, for example, discusses Ocean’s 8 (2018) – the sex-swapped remake of the aforementioned Ocean’s 11 films – as charged with the task of fixing the politics of its predecessors: [T]hey’re subtly expected to fix these old films, to neutralize their sex­ ism and infuse them with feminism, to rebuild them into good movies with good politics, too. They have to do everything the men did, except backwards with ideals. . . . One gets the sense that these movies aren’t just fixing up old plots; they’re working as symbolic correctives to Hol­ lywood’s mistreatment of women writ large.118 In Chapter 6 I expand on this idea, exploring content that gets remade to better reflect the politics of the day, including tackling topics of race and gender. While deployment of special effects or utilization of modern technology to make a better film are discussed in Chapter 1, for this chapter I am more concerned with how remakes provide the opportunity for filmmakers to put their own spin on a story to make it not only better but notably more creative.

One’s own spin In his discussion on the negative discourse around remakes, Chris Ran­ dle in Hazlitt identifies that “The standard suspicion towards remakes [is] that they’ve arrived through some unattractive clinch between indifference

The creative remake

187

and desperation.”119 The notion of indifference here seems to imply that the remake is a commercial enterprise uniquely void of artistry. In reviews, this criticism is expressed through the phrase half-hearted as already discussed, as well as via the word uninspired, for example: • The action-drama King Kong (1976) as a “tragically uninspired remake of the big-ape classic [1933].”120 • The thriller Sorcerer (1977) as an “uninspired remake” of the French film Le salaire de la peur (Wages of Fear) (1953).121 • The biblical-themed drama mini-series Quo Vadis (1985) as an “unin­ spired remake” of the 1951 film.122 • The sci-fi film Invaders from Mars (1986) as an “uninspired remake” of the 1953 film.123 • The thriller Suspicion (1988) as an “uninspired remake” of the 1941 film.124 • The action-drama The Package (1989) as “nothing more than an unin­ spired remake of The Day of the Jackal (1973).”125 • The thriller Notorious (1992) as a “tedious, uninspired remake” of the 1946 film.126 • The aforementioned romcom Born Yesterday (1993) as an “unnecessary and uninspired remake” of the 1950 film.127 • The crime-drama Get Carter (2000) as an “uninspired remake” of the 1971 British film.128 • The horror film The Eye (2008) as an “uninspired remake” of the Hong Kong film Gin gwai (The Eye) (2002).129 • The horror film The Wolfman (2010) as an “uninspired remake” of the 1941 film.130 • The romcom Just Go With It (2011) as an “uninspired remake” of Cactus Flower (1969).131 • The Western The Magnificent Seven (2016) – the remake of the 1960 film, itself a remake of Shichinin no samurai (Seven Samurai) (1954) – as an “uninspired remake.”132 • The aforementioned comedy The Hustle (2019) as “not merely unin­ spired, but sub-inspired, de-inspired, anti-inspired. It feels at times like the consummation of some wicked dare.”133 While uninspired is not defined in such examples – and while a reviewer may simply be using the adjective as a more poetic way of saying not good – use of such a criticism is emblematic of the negative discourse around remakes, framing such productions as somehow more prone to being unin­ spired than non-remakes134 and implying that remakes should only happen if appropriate inspiration strikes and if a creative spin can be applied. Such an idea is illustrative of creativity imagined as somehow divine inspiration as opposed to toil traded for money.135 In James Francis Jr.’s work on horror remakes, he discusses the Psy­ cho remake, positing “When Gus Van Sant announced he would do a

188 The creative remake frame-by-frame remake of Psycho in 1998, debates abounded. Did he think he was better than Hitchcock? Why not re-envision the film in his own style?”136 A review in New York Post similarly posited: “if you’re going to be hubristic enough to remake Psycho, you should at least put your own spin on it.”137 The noteworthy allegations of egoism aside, apparent in both com­ ments is an assumption that a remake can only be justified if a director does something new and creative with the source material, with the caveat that, of course, attempting this when the baseline is the creative output of an auteur is laughable at best and blasphemous at worst. As part of the rhetoric associated with remaking – and as part of establish­ ing the case that a new film is “original” – oftentimes personnel will play up the creativity of a reproduction and downplay the derivativeness. In a Telegraph article on the 2016 film Ben-Hur – the remake of material filmed previously in 1907, 1925 and 1959 – it is observed that “Everyone on set is keen to emphasise that their film is not a remake: rather, it’s a reinterpreta­ tion.”138 Personnel involved with Ben-Hur (2016), for example, argued that the new film was a reinterpretation of Lew Wallace’s 1880 novel. Cast and crew involved with remakes often make similar claims: • When director Zack Snyder made Dawn of the Dead (2004) – the remake of the 1978 horror film – he claimed it wasn’t a remake: “Reinterpreta­ tion is what we wanted to do. Re-envision it. We put some steroids into it.”139 • When Tony Scott made The Taking of Pelham 123 (2009) – the remake of the 1974 film – he claimed, “It’s not a remake. It’s not a reimagining, it’s not a reinvention. It’s a very different movie.”140 • When the political mini-series Secret State (2012) – a remake of the series A Very British Coup (1988) – was announced, star Gabriel Byrne argued, “is not in any way a remake . . . it is a reimagining of the elements of the basic story but it deals very much with a contemporary Britain.”141 • David Ellison, producer of Terminator Genisys (2015) – a remake of The Terminator (1984) – claims his film “is not a remake; it’s not a reboot; it’s not a sequel – it’s really a reimagining.”142 • Discussing the crime-drama Point Break (2015), star Teresa Palmer says, “It only has a very loose skeleton of what the [1991] original is about. It really is its own movie. It’s definitely not a remake, we’re calling it a re-envisioning.”143 • When Disney made Pete’s Dragon (2016) – the live-action remake of the 1977 film – actress Bryce Dallas Howard, claimed that, after reading the new script, “I realised it’s not a remake; it’s a reimagining. Of course, that’s the word people always use. But it’s true.”144 • When Sofia Coppola made the period-drama The Beguiled (2017) – a remake of the 1971 film – she claimed that her film was “not a remake but a reinterpretation,”145 positing Thomas Cullinan’s 1966 novel as its source material.

The creative remake

189

• In an interview about the horror film Suspiria (2018) – the remake of the 1977 film – actress Tilda Swinton says, “It’s another version, not a remake. . . . It’s inspired by the same story, but it goes in different directions.”146 • Rupert Evans, star of the supernatural series Charmed (2018–) – the reboot of the 1998–2006 series – claimed that the series wasn’t a remake, rather, “It’s a reimagining.”147 • Natalie Dormer, star of Picnic at Hanging Rock (2018), claimed of the mini-series “It’s not a remake of the [1975] film. . . . It’s a reimagining of the [1967 Joan Lindsay] book.”148 Such claims point to several issues. First, they each underscore the highlevel negative discourse around remakes and the verbal linguistics offered by personnel to avoid association with such a maligned production category; that somehow fidelity to a literary source is deemed preferable – deemed higher brow – than reproduction of another screen media item. Most rel­ evant to this discussion, however, such comments do in fact point to the capacity for creativity in new productions. While, of course, the person­ nel quoted earlier are, as Bryce Dallas Howard notes, just using the word “people always use” and defensively claiming that something different and better than mere remaking has occurred, the statements – however petulant – are accurate: a film made with a new cast and a new crew in a new era is, by its very nature, a new film; Scott Lukas and John Marmysz make this point in their work on horror, noting: “no remake is, in fact, an exact replica of the film it has remade, and so there is always some degree of creative originality involved in its production.”149 We accept this in the context of theater or the fine arts, and the same is also true for film; something screenwriter Norman Corwin – who wrote The Blue Veil (1951), the US adaptation of the French drama Le voile bleu (1942) – alluded to: ‘Leda and the Swan’ by Leonardo is going to be radically different from the ‘Leda and the Swan’ of Picasso. The source is the same, it’s the legend, it’s mythology, but the execution is completely different. A dif­ ferent approach, philosophy, materials.150 While creativity is, as noted, highly subjective – and thus the extent to which each of the aforementioned remakes are actually creative is open to inter­ pretation – nonetheless, the enhanced creativity apparent in a new pro­ duction is occasionally called out for compliment in reviews. In Barbara Grohmann’s Hamilton Spectator discussion of the adventure-drama Godzilla (1998), for example – the remake of the Japanese film Gojira (Godzilla) (1954) – she observes: This is a brilliantly smart, funny and creative remake of a classic movie creature that now threatens New York instead of Tokyo. . . . The cheesy

190 The creative remake rubber suits and bad sound editing are replaced by amazing special effects that bring this realistically improved icon to a new generation.151 In Neil McDonald’s Quadrant work on the Western A Fistful of Dollars (1964) – Sergio Leone’s remake of the Japanese samurai film Yôjinbô (Yojimbo) (1961) – he similarly posits: Leone did bring his own vision to the story. Mingling the stoicism of the samurai with the stillness of the western gunfighter – especially when played by [Clint] Eastwood – stylised the western even more than it had been with the formal groupings of directors like John Sturges.152 In such rare examples, through a filmmaker’s unique stamp, a remake is elevated to something different and artistic, thus conjuring the capacity both to justify its existence and also potentially resulting in a film that can be perceived as equal to – or even outshining – its predecessor. While thus far I have discussed directors doing something new and crea­ tive, there is also the capacity for on-screen talent to achieve this too. Discus­ sions of the 2019 Aladdin, for example, repeatedly draw attention to actor Will Smith bringing something new and creative to his role as the Genie. In Peter Travers’ Rolling Stone review, for example, he contends that Smith “is the movie’s best special effect. He brings a Fresh Prince sass to the role and wisely never tries to imitate the inimitable [Robin] Williams.”153 A simi­ lar point is made in Juliet Kahn’s Looper discussion where she claims that “Smith succeeded by bringing something totally new to his character.”154 In such examples, a performer provides an additional opportunity to make a reproduction creative through deployment of their unique talents (dis­ cussed further in Chapter 1). Bringing additional substance is another way material can be creatively revisited.

The more-developed film Common among criticisms of remakes is that they are redundant. In Alan Frank’s review of Point of No Return (1993)155, for example – the US remake of the French film La Femme Nikita (1990) – he describes it as a “slavish, redundant remake.”156 In Wendy Ide’s review of the crime-drama Crimi­ nal (2004) – a remake of the Argentinian film Nueve reinas (Nine Queens) (2000) – she similarly writes, “While it is not an entirely redundant remake, it adds nothing to the original.”157 While I might be inclined to ponder how a remake could add anything the original – in line with the curious allega­ tions explored in Chapter 3 of remakes perceived as taking away something from an earlier film – nonetheless, Ide’s comment relates well to the rheto­ ric around remakes needing to justify their existence and, as relevant to this discussion, to build-upon what has gone before. This idea is underpinned by

The creative remake

191

the belief that there is no point being slavishly faithful and producing a shotfor-shot version of the predecessor; rather, the film needs to do something more with the source material to justify its existence. Director Bill Condon – who directed Beauty and the Beast (2017), the live-action remake of the 1991 animation – was asked “Why remake a classic movie that is not only beloved but also pretty much perfect as is?”, and he, too, identified needing to add something: “The only one reason I can think, and it’s that this AshmanMenken musical still has more to say and more to reveal.”158 In this section I investigate remakes that expand on a narrative and attempt to do more with its source material beyond simply zhuzhing it with new technology and special effects (Chapter 1). In a range of examples, the idea of a more developed film is identified, notably so in cases where the remake is perceived as better than its prede­ cessor. In film theorist John DiLeo’s discussion of the melodrama Imitation of Life (1959), for example – the remake of the 1934 film – he identifies how the new film improves upon the old: With its reputation as a Douglas Sirk masterpiece, this remake has cer­ tainly dwarfed the simpler 1934 version. . . . Sirk’s remake delivers a more compelling treatment of the black mother and daughter . . . and their worthy plotline about race and self-loathing.159 The plot and character expansion that DiLeo references can also be iden­ tified in other remakes. In 1989, Michael Mann wrote and directed the made-for-television L.A. Takedown. The cast was relatively unknown and the budget comparatively small. In 1995, Mann remade his film as the cinema release Heat. For the television movie, apparently 30% of Mann’s original script had to be cut: the budget of Heat conversely facilitated a larger-scale production with more well-developed characters and, notably, the (re)inclusion of much of the “structure of verses and choruses” that had been in Mann’s original script;160 as Leah Singer wrote in the Independent, in Heat “Mann made the most of the extra opportunity to flesh-out rela­ tionships and dynamics, exercise his fearsome technical prowess and hire the best actors.”161 The US production of the political-drama House of Cards (2013–2018) – the remake of the three-part, 226-minute British mini-series (1990) – provides another example of a substantially fleshed-out story. The American remake was a multi-season series, revolving (at least initially), around ruthless politician Frank Underwood (Kevin Spacey). The Ameri­ can production is an example of a remake that took an original concept and expanded it exponentially, taking the material in new and distinctly creative directions. In cultural critic Celia Wren’s discussion of the Ameri­ can House of Cards, she notes that the remake had “more-rounded charac­ ters.”162 Elsewhere I explore the remake’s uniquely queer inclusions.163 To populate a series that had over 70 episodes, the remake needed not only more developed characters but more characters overall, as well as more

192 The creative remake storylines and, of course, more imagination to sustain audience interest over a period of years. Elsewhere I discuss something similar transpiring with the US sitcom The Office (2005–2013), the long-running adaptation of the British series (2001–2003). Many more episodes often means much deeper characterization164 and – as I discuss elsewhere165 – opportunities to include more diverse presentations, including, for example, a recurring homosexual character. While a bigger budget enabled Mann to do justice to his original script, it is worth noting that material often gets expanded for reasons beyond just helping to execute a filmmaker’s vision. While films made for broadcast tel­ evision tend to have shorter runtimes to accommodate commercial breaks, cinema releases are commonly longer. In fact, since the 1960s, longer runt­ imes have become increasingly common in Hollywood:166 such movies are thought to provide better competition with television, giving audiences the perception that their ticket has bought them a valuable viewing experience. A correlation also exists with films that win awards and length, thus runtime is often coupled with prestige. While Heat, the American House of Cards and the American The Office were each well-received by audiences and critics, it should be noted that making a bigger film or a longer television series – by elongating the narrative, for example and bringing in more characters and action – isn’t always a tem­ plate for success. In 2010, Géla Babluani remade his French crime-drama 13 Tzameti (2005) in the US as 13. One of the criticisms of 13 made by V.A. Musetto in the New York Post centers on the expansion of the charac­ ters’ back stories, “which serve only to slow the film’s momentum.”167 This same criticism has been applied to a range of remakes, whereby a longer runtime has been identified as damaging. In reviews of the 2019 Lion King, for example, critics repeatedly drew negative attention to its plot-padding and embellishments. In a review for the Stirling Observer, for example, it is flagged that: A big problem with the flick is the unnecessary additions made to the plot by writer Jeff Nathanson. . . . Clocking in at half-an-hour longer than its animated predecessor, the excess story beats and songs feel like padding rather than natural, worthwhile accompaniments.168 Sneh Rupra is even more critical in a review for Outtake: Soulless sums it up best – padded out with extra scenes that add noth­ ing except minutes to the run time and populated with blank faced lions that could just as easily be discussing the weather, as seeing their father die.169 Many remakes are similarly criticized for padding. In a discussion of the aforementioned 2017 Beauty and the Beast as well as the 2019 Aladdin, Scott

The creative remake

193

Mendelson in Forbes observes that the films “feel even more padded and needlessly over-expository.”170 The same criticism was directed at Dumbo (2019) – the live action remake of the 1941 animation – where the film was criticized as having “unnecessary added storylines.”171 Such criticisms are not a contemporary phenomenon. Discussing the 1959 Ben-Hur, for exam­ ple, film historian Robert Klepper referenced the 212-minute runtime and spotlighted some of the deficits of the extended narrative, for example, “the betting sequence in the remake is dragged out into a nearly 10-minute uneventful session of dialogue, without any of the zeal of the original.”172 In Scott Eyman’s book on director Cecil B. DeMille he discussed the direc­ tor’s drama Forbidden Fruit (1921) – an autoremake of his The Golden Chance (1915) – arguing that substantially expanding on the original didn’t, in fact, make Forbidden Fruit a better film: “The remake is played for society swank pure and simple, complete with lovely but irrelevant Cinderella flashbacks that pad the running time.”173 Frank Capra’s Pocketful of Miracles (1961), an autoremake of his Lady for a Day (1933), was criticized similarly: With the remake a full 40 minutes longer than the original, and shot in lush color, Miracles is far broader in scope, and fills in, sometimes to the point of redundancy, the back stories of many of the characters whose personalities are rather more stock in the first iteration.174 Writer Saxon Bullock discusses the drama Meet Joe Black (1998), a remake of Death Takes a Holiday (1934), and notes that while the original only ran for 79 minutes, Meet Joe Black stretched the material to “a mind-numbing three hours.”175 The long runtime of the remake was, in fact, criticized by numer­ ous reviewers: Travers in Rolling Stone, for example, cited a fellow audience member’s post-film commentary: “One groggy observer raised his bleary eyes and said to no one in particular, ‘Fucking long.’ ”176 Just as more special effects and technology don’t always guarantee a remake’s success, diminishing returns are also relevant here. Making a longer film may give audiences the impression of value and prestige, but it also means that newness and creativity need to be sustained over a longer period, something not always achievable in a multi-hour film. Remakes can also become bigger films by reintroducing material that had been eliminated from the original. As apparent in L.A. Takedown men­ tioned earlier, content from Mann’s original script had been edited out to reduce production costs; such content was reintroduced when Mann remade the film as Heat. On other occasions material that had been eliminated for social or political reasons is reintroduced in a reproduction, something psy­ chiatrist Harvey Greenberg discusses: [Remakes] may be intended to open up psychological-political possi­ bilities latent in the original movie that makers were unaware of, or that could not be pursued because of censorship (e.g. Blake Edwards’

194 The creative remake Victor, Victoria [1982] – a remake of a now forgotten film of the thirties [Viktor und Viktoria (1933)] with a much more suppressed homoerotic subtext).177 Certainly, in the context of homosexual-themed narratives, remaking may be done to revisit content that had been considered taboo in an earlier period; the drama The Children’s Hour (1961) provides such an example. In 1936, William Wyler made These Three, an adaptation of Lillian Hellman’s play The Children’s Hour (1934). Robert Nowlan and Gwendolyn Wright Nowlan in their work on remakes note that there had been a stipulation from the Hays Office in advance of Wyler’s production mandating that “it could not use either the title or the lesbian angle.”178 When Wyler revisited Hellman’s play twenty-five years later, the lesbian storyline – and the play’s original title – were reintroduced. Revisiting the material achieved several things including a film with closer adherence to the text, the reintroduc­ tion of a previously censored story (thus providing a representation of a marginalized population) and affording the opportunity to a director to be the one to go back and correct the past (a topic returned to later in this chapter). Expanding narratives through the incorporation of contemporary social issues like homosexuality is also, arguably, part of the expectations of audi­ ences in the modern era. In her work on television remakes, for example, media theorist Claire Perkins observes: The contemporary trope of complexity is evident too in the moral intri­ cacy of the most acclaimed US series of the present era. Quality televi­ sion is routinely expected to confront audiences with graphic content and provocative ethical scenarios that create a ‘buzz’ around individual series.179 Such issues are explored further in Chapter 6 in my discussion of remakes adapted through incorporation of modern values and social issues. Just as an expanded narrative risks being construed as boring or too long-winded, such productions can also risk alienating fans of the source material whereby too many changes can actually be perceived as something bad, if not sullying. Mendelson, for example, discusses the aforementioned 2014 RoboCop remake and flags: “it’s still beholden to both the wrath of RoboCop fans and maintaining a certain amount of source fidelity. . . . The problem is that it’s a remake, which means it can’t entirely go its own way and completely do its own thing.”180 Here, Mendelson alludes to the fine line remakes have to toe: they can’t be shot-for-shot reproductions but also can’t veer too far from the source material. Mentioned already in this chapter was the backlash that transpired following the 2016 sex-swapped Ghostbusters remake of the 1984 film. In Chapter 2 I detailed that part of the motivation for remaking is to capitalize on a brand and (re)appeal to

The creative remake

195

the audience of the earlier film. While concessions are of course made for a certain level of update – and, as noted, such updates are generally essen­ tial – a balance nonetheless has to be struck between honoring a predeces­ sor and not taking creativity or expansion too far and tainting the source material or besmirching a legacy (Chapter 3). For the 2016 Ghostbusters, sex-swapping the cast was viewed by some as taking one liberty too many. One way a remake can justify its existence is when it is perceived as bring­ ing something fresh to an old story, as examined in the next section.

Breathing new life In a review of the 2016 live-action The Jungle Book, it’s noted that it is an example of “the rare remake that not only stays true to the spirit of the original but somehow manages to breathe new life into the story.”181 In a range of reviews, the notion of a filmmaker – alternatively, the film’s stars – breathing new life into a story is claimed by critics: • In a discussion of The Magnificent Seven (1960) – the remake of the Japa­ nese samurai film Seven Samurai (Shichinin no samurai) (1954) – it is claimed that “the change in setting breathed new life into the story and gave the film its own identity.”182 • Director Peter Jackson is described as having “breathed new life into King Kong [2005]” in his remake of the 1933 and 1976 films.183 • In a discussion of the animated Thunderbirds Are Go (2015–) – the remake of Thunderbirds (1965–1966) – it is argued that “modern, highoctane action . . . breathed new life into a much beloved series.”184 • It is argued that Disney “breathed new life into this classic tale” when the animated Cinderella (1950) became a live-action film in 2015.185 • Director Tim Burton is argued to have “breathed new life into Alice in Wonderland, with Johnny Depp in 2010, along with its sequel, Alice Through the Looking Glass [2016].”186 • Disney is thought to have “breathed new life” into Beauty and the Beast (1991) in 2017.187 • In discussing A Star is Born (2018) – a film made previously in 1937, 1954 and 1976 – Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga are alleged to have “breathed new life into this sordid tale of love and loss.”188 While breathing new life isn’t defined – and it’s worth observing that, in the context of a remake, such a phrase is perhaps merely a cliché (akin to stock phrases from the remake rhetoric pool like uninspired as discussed earlier) – nonetheless, the idiom has relevance to examining an obvious way that a good remake is designed to operate: that a dead or – in the world of media, forgotten – screen item is resurrected in a new era, for a new audience. While thus far I have discussed better films and expanded narratives as two ways that remakes can be justified, there are other creative ways that

196 The creative remake new life can be breathed into a remake. In the sections that follow I focus on three such methods: by reimagining the setting, swapping the genre and targeting a new audience.

The reimagined setting Film theorist Thomas Leitch discusses the “update remake,” describing such productions as: [C]haracterized by their overly revisionary stance toward an original text they treat as classic, even though they transform it in some obvi­ ous way, usually by transposing it into a new setting, inverting its system of values, or adapting standards of realism that implicitly criticize the original as outmoded, or irrelevant.189 Knöppler discusses something similar in his work on horror: Remakes adapt an earlier film for a new audience in a different histori­ cal or cultural context. The newly realized film either works because some of the material has remained relevant, or it makes an effort to stay relevant by making changes deemed appropriate to the current cultural climate.190 While many remakes – notably so those wanting to secure a nostalgia audi­ ence (Chapter 3) – maintain the original setting, in others, a story is given new life and, arguably, new salience by being moved into a new era and thus creating the opportunity to be marketed as contemporary and cuttingedge. The aforementioned Magnificent Seven (1960/2016), for example, took its samurai source material and moved it from sixteenth-century Japan to Wild West America. Secret State – a remake of A Very British Coup – also mentioned earlier, restaged the series to hone in on political problems in contemporary Britain. Such restaging is notably a very common way for canonical literature to be reimagined for the screen, something common for Shakespeare’s plays: West Side Story (1961) for example, took Romeo and Juliet and relocated it from 1600s Verona to 1960s New York City; 10 Things I Hate About You (1999) similarly took Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew and restaged it in a late-90s high school. She’s The Man (2006) was a similar high school spin on Twelfth Night. Such restaging also transpires in many other remakes. The 1932 Scarface focused on gangsters in 1920s Chicago. When the film was remade in 1983, the narrative moved to 1980s Miami, providing commentary on drugs and violence in modern America. Louisa May Alcott’s novel Little Women (1868), a novel set during the American Civil War, has been filmed many times since its first adaptation as the 1917 silent film. In the 2018 version, the plot was moved to the modern era albeit, according to critics, ham-fistedly.191 (The made-for-television The March Sisters at Christmas

The creative remake

197

[2012] was another contemporary spin on the novel, albeit a much looser adaptation). The 1962 political-thriller The Manchurian Candidate was set during the Cold War and specifically spoke to the political concerns of the era. The 2004 remake moved the story to post-9/11 America and reflects a range of remakes made in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks whereby a narrative is restaged and reimagined to reflect the socio-political zeitgeist (explored further in Chapter 6). While remakes can change the narrative’s era, also common is geo­ graphic relocation as occurred with some of the examples listed earlier; as explored in Chapter 4, this is extremely common in the context of Ameri­ can transnational remakes where it is common for a narrative to be relo­ cated stateside: Godzilla (1998) moving the Gojira (Godzilla) narrative from Tokyo to New York is an obvious example. This, however, also occurs in American remakes of American films, as transpired with the Scarface exam­ ple mentioned earlier. Similarly, in the melodrama Beaches (1988), the cen­ tral characters first meet on the boardwalk in Atlantic City, New Jersey, and the narrative charts CC’s (Bette Midler) career on Broadway. In the 2017 made-for-television remake, the girls meet on the boardwalk in Venice, Los Angeles, and CC’s (Idina Menzel) career is made in California. It’s a small tweak but nonetheless serves to distance the remake from its predecessor in an attempt to avoid criticisms of being too derivative. Restaging remakes in new eras and new places serves several purposes. In the aforementioned example of The Manchurian Candidate, for exam­ ple, the 1962 and 2004 films each spoke to their respective eras: each film provided commentary on the politics of the day and thus were timely pro­ ductions addressing the real-life issues faced by their intended audience. Giving a new narrative contemporary relevance is a way to build a new audi­ ence; it is also a creative way to breathe new life into an old story, something Ryan Lambie discusses in Den of Geek!: Given that Hollywood film producers are always looking for new ways of couching classic stories in interesting new ways – see Guy Ritchie’s hugely successful Sherlock Holmes [2009], which modernised the tone of Conan Doyle’s character, if not his setting – simply setting them in the future or in the depths of space is certainly a convenient way to do this. It’s a time-honoured practice, too, with Robinson Crusoe On Mars [1964] and Forbidden Planet [1956] being but two examples of classic stories (in the latter case, Shakespeare’s The Tempest) pressed into the sci-fi genre.192 Disney’s animation Treasure Planet (2002) is a similar example whereby Rob­ ert Louis Stevenson’s story Treasure Island (1883) is reimagined as a sci-fi film restaged in space and set far into the future. Such updates can help to secure a new generation audience. Restaging a film in a new era or even, sometimes, a new place, can also be part of a

198 The creative remake strategy to move a remake into a new genre; something Lambie alluded to and a strategy explored in the next section.

The genre-swap In film theorist Robert Eberwein’s taxonomy of remakes, he lists, “A remake that changes the genre and cultural setting of a film. For example: The Lives of a Bengal Lancer (1935) remade as the Western, Geronimo (1939), or the Western High Noon (1952) remade as a sci-fi film Outland (1981).”193 Genre-change, in fact, transpires widely. Film theorist Constantine Verevis spotlights the Japanese samurai film Yôjinbô (Yojimbo) (1961) being remade as the Italian Western A Fistful of Dollars (1964) and then remade in the US as the crime-drama Last Man Standing (1996).194 Hutcheon discusses W.R. Burnett’s novel The Asphalt Jungle (1949) being adapted for the screen as a straight crime-drama of the same name (1950), then as the Western Badlanders (1958), then as the caper film Cairo (1963) and then as the Blaxploi­ tation film Cool Breeze (1972).195 While remaking films as musicals is the most common form of genre-swap (explored further in Chapter 6), there are a wide range of others whereby just enough originary material is tweaked to alter the genre, for example: • The drama The Sea Wolf (1913/1941) remade as the Western Barricade (1950). • The British war-drama Lost Patrol (1929) remade as the Western Bad Lands (1939). • The film-noir The Maltese Falcon (1931) remade as the comedy Satan Met a Lady (1936). • The Soviet Union drama Trinadtsat (1937) remade as the war-drama Sahara (1943) and then again as the Western Last of the Comanches (1953). • The gangster film High Sierra (1941) remade as the Western Colorado Territory (1949). • The war-drama Lifeboat (1944) remade as the made-for-television sci-fi film Lifepod (1993). • The drama House of Strangers (1949) remade as the Western Broken Lance (1954) and then again as the circus-drama The Big Show (1961). • The adventure-romance The African Queen (1951) remade as the West­ ern Rooster Cogburn (1975). • The thriller Strangers on a Train (1951) remade as the comedy Throw Momma From the Train (1987). • The Japanese samurai film Rashômon (Rashomon) (1951) remade as the Western The Outrage (1964). • The Western Shane (1953) reimagined as a feminist-drama when remade in Australia as Shame (1988). (The Australian drama was then remade in the US with the same name in 1992.)

The creative remake

199

• The thriller Rear Window (1954) remade as a romcom Head Over Heels (2001). • The film-noir The Desperate Hours (1955) remade as an action-drama (1990). • The Western Rio Bravo (1959) remade as the action-thriller Assault on Precinct 13 (1976). • The Swedish drama Jungfrukällan (The Virgin Spring) (1960) remade as the horror film The Last House on the Left (1972). (The horror film was then remade in 2009.) • The Western The Sons of Katie Elder (1965) remade as the crime-drama Four Brothers (2005). • The horror film Night of the Living Dead (1968) remade as the comedy Shaun of the Dead (2004). • The Japanese samurai film Goyôkin (1969) remade as the Western The Master Gunfighter (1975). • The war-drama Hell in the Pacific (1968) remade as the sci-fi film Enemy Mine (1985). • The thriller The Stepford Wives (1975) remade as a comic satire in 2004. • The French comedy La Totale! (1991) remade in the US as the action film True Lies (1994). • The crime-drama series 21 Jump Street (1987–1991) remade as the com­ edy 21 Jump Street (2012). Along with overt satires like Shaun of the Dead and The Stepford Wives, remakes like Satan Met a Lady and 21 Jump Street are also examples of what Eber­ wein terms “Comic and parodic remakes,” of which he names Frankenstein (1931) and its parodic reimagining Young Frankenstein (1954) as an exam­ ple.196 Many remakes also genre-swap through reproduction as parodies, for example: • The mystery Seven Keys to Baldpate (1917/1925/1929/1935/1947) remade as the parody House of the Long Shadows (1982). • The comedy-drama Topaze (1933) remade as the parody I Like Money (1960). • The war-comedy Gunga Din (1939) remade as the parody Sargeants Three (1962). • The action-adventure Against All Flags (1952) remade as the parody The King’s Pirate (1967). • The melodrama All That Heaven Allows (1955) remade as the German parody Angst essen Seele auf (Ali: Fear Eats the Soul) (1974). • The sci-fi film The Incredible Shrinking Man (1957) remade as the parody The Incredible Shrinking Woman (1981). A variation of the parody is the “mockbuster” or “exploitation” film: film theorist I.Q. Hunter describes such films as those that “explicitly imitate

200 The creative remake other movies, cannibalising their titles, concepts and publicity gimmick.”197 In Dana Harris and Erin Maxwell’s Variety work on such films, they list exam­ ples including The Da Vinci Treasure (2006), Snakes on a Train (2006), Trans­ morphers (2007) and Transmorphers: Fall of Man (2009), which each take a well-known film title, tweak it and use the source material as the basis for an – often loose – spoof remake.198 Blaxploitation films are another exam­ ple of this; a genre discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6. While I’ve largely listed US examples of parodic remakes thus far, media theorist Patricia Aufderheide discusses Nigerian parodies of the James Bond films199 and also observes that “Some of the most popular Hong Kong films have been remakes, takeoffs or simply steals of popular American mov­ ies.”200 Worth also spotlighting is the strong cross-over between the spoof category and pornographic spins – i.e., Dawson’s Crack (2000) as a porn spin on the teen series Dawson’s Creek (1998–2003) – that I examine elsewhere.201 Several motivations exist for undertaking a genre-swap. Most obvious is the synergy between certain genres, thus making transitioning between them comparatively easy. Mentioned already in this chapter has been Rashô­ mon (Rashomon) (1951)/The Outrage (1964), Shichinin no samurai (Seven Samurai) (1954)/The Magnificent Seven (1960/2016), Yôjinbô (Yojimbo) (1961)/A Fistful of Dollars (1964) and Goyôkin (1969)/The Master Gunfighter (1975) whereby Japanese samurai films are reimagined as Westerns. As explored in a range of discussions,202 much correlation exists between the two genres with Westerns having extensively influenced samurai films (and also vice versa) – and while aesthetically they may seem quite different, notably being set in different eras and on different continents – filmmakers have long found a logic in moving stories between them. Something simi­ lar can be said for Westerns reimagined as crime-dramas. While – as dis­ cussed in Chapter 6 – Westerns may no longer be in vogue, nonetheless, the tropes of the genre are readily shared with crime-dramas: interest in Wild West gunslingers may have waned in the last few decades, but audi­ ences are nonetheless often still drawn to films featuring outsiders and law and order themes. Similarly, samurai films have often been interpreted as having informed other genres: while Star Wars (1977), for example, is often linked to the Western in scholarly discussions,203 cultural theorist Rachael Hutchinson argues that, in fact, it is a remake of a specific samurai film: Kakushi toride no san akunin (The Hidden Fortress, 1956) becomes one of popular cinema’s all-time favourites, set in a galaxy far, far away; the narrative legends of Star Wars (1977) have come to represent a kind of universal humanism that seem to take account of the ‘mythic factor’ in [Akira] Kurosawa’s films.204 The same connection between Star Wars and Kakushi toride no san akunin (The Hidden Fortress) is established by other scholars.205

The creative remake

201

Another explanation for the genre-swap is offered by film theorist Doris Milberg, who suggests that such a change centers on “creating a new look for an old chestnut.”206 Forrest also addresses this idea, identifying that doing so is about carving out a new identity for a film and distinguishing it from its predecessor, contending that “switching genres” is about establish­ ing “a break both with the past and with an often formidable precursor.”207 Akin to altering the setting making enough tweaks to change the genre can help a remake establish a new identity. Forrest and Koos also present a more cynical rationale, suggesting that part of this is about – as expanded on in Chapter 2 – concealing the status of a remake, arguing that switching genres reflects an effort “to mask the source material by hiding it in another genre.”208 By remaking a film in a different genre, the new production argu­ ably becomes different enough from its predecessor to avoid paying royalties. (This is something compounded if the remake has a new title, thus distanc­ ing it even further from its source material). Forrest and Koos also spotlight that sometimes a genre is changed to bet­ ter utilize available talent, noting that such a switch can be about “tap[ping] into the talents of the stars carrying the vehicle.”209 The authors point to Rita Hayworth’s singing as an explanation for the melodrama Sadie Thomp­ son (1928) remade as the “semi musical” Miss Sadie Thompson (1953).210 Druxman also discusses this trend, observing: [Twentieth Century Fox’s Darryl] Zanuck found that the ‘old switch­ eroo’ was a good way to supply all his musical talent – Alice Faye and the Misses [Betty] Grable and [June] Haver – with stories for their films.211 Nicolas Rapold, in The New York Times, proposes an additional explanation for genre-change, suggesting that sometimes doing so affords “the oppor­ tunity to intensify or sharpen salient aspects of the original.”212 An example of this would be the aforementioned horror film Night of the Living Dead (1968) and its comic remake Shaun of the Dead (2004): while in the 1968 film there were camp and arguably also humorous elements in an otherwise standard horror film, the remake shifts the balance where the film becomes a comedy with secondary horror themes. While a genre-shift is a means to bring creativity and fresh air to a remake, it’s worth flagging that such efforts are not always successful. Film critic Roger Ebert, for example, discusses this in the context of the musical Lost Horizon (1973), the remake of the 1937 adventure-drama: What I don’t understand is why the remake had to be a musical in the first place. Just a nice, quiet new version of the good old story would have been enough. The material is so light it can hardly bear the weight of music, and it sinks altogether during a series of the most incompe­ tent and clumsy dance numbers I’ve seen.213

202 The creative remake While swapping genres is a creative means to update material, doing so may not succeed for a range of reasons, most notably that the opportu­ nity to cash in on the brand identity of a predecessor may be thwarted if too many alterations – such as genre and/or title – are made. Too many changes sever the links with a predecessor, thus the ability to cash in on pre­ awareness is eliminated. Of course, retaining a title but dramatically alter­ ing the contents can also be problematic, as cultural theorists Rüdiger Heinze and Lucia Krämer spotlight: The label ‘remake’ in advertising – much like a genre label – thus creates an implicit contract between producers and consumers that establishes the possibility to engage with more than one text simultaneously.214 By substantially deviating from its originary material, a remake can be per­ ceived as breaking a contract with audiences and can lead to the kind of backlash that the 2016 Ghostbusters experienced.

Audience expansion As noted at several junctures in this chapter, a central reason for genre-swaps – and, in fact, for creative approaches more broadly – is to make a pitch to a new audience. In this section, two distinct groups are discussed as targeted through reimagined material: the young and the old(er). The young Film attendance is skewed toward teen audiences. This reality has seen studios disproportionately target this demographic and, in turn, has moti­ vated a range of criticisms. First, this has led to studios focusing attention and resources on producing blockbusters (Chapter 1) and second, teentargeted remakes are routinely lamented as being dumb or, at least, dumbeddown. In a review of the comedy The Longest Yard (2005), for example – the remake of the 1974 film – critic Christy Lemire describes it as “MTV’d-up and dumbed-down,”215 the implication being that the dumbing-down has specifically occurred in pursuit of MTV’s youth audience. A primary factor that makes a teen audience distinctly receptive to a remake is that, to them, the film is likely construed as entirely new; Horsley referenced this earlier, and it’s something Hutcheon also explores: If we do not know that what we are experiencing actually is an adapta­ tion or if we are not familiar with the particular work it adapts, we sim­ ply experience the adaptation as we would any other work.216 This idea has particular resonance for horror, a genre where the audience is even more sharply skewed toward young people. As Francis discusses in his work on horror remakes, “Many of them (typically the younger, teen

The creative remake

203

audience) have no idea that each of these films date back to the 1970s and 1980s.”217 While remakes regularly target young people through the presumption that many will be unfamiliar with the predecessors, the same demographic is targeted through more overt pitches, whereby material is deliberately reimagined with a youth market in mind. Like West Side Story, 10 Things I Hate About You and She’s The Man mentioned earlier, a range of screen adaptations of Shakespeare’s plays have been given distinctly teen-oriented spins, something I discuss elsewhere: The wide variety of teen-oriented spins on Shakespeare – Romeo and Juliet repackaged as Tromeo and Juliet [1996], as well as West Side Story (1961), Romeo and Juliet (1968), China Girl (1987), Romeo + Juliet (1996), Romeo Must Die (2000), and Warm Bodies (2013); Henry IV as My Own Private Idaho [1991]; Taming of the Shrew as 10 Things I Hate About You [1999]; Hamlet as Hamlet (2000), Hamlet 2 (2008), and Ophelia (2018); A Midsummer Night’s Dream as A Midsummer Night’s Rave (2002) and Get Over It (2001); Othello as Othello (1995) and O (2001); Twelfth Night as She’s The Man (2006) and Much Ado About Nothing (1993, 2012) – are each attempts to freshen centuries-old material for the lucrative youth market.218 Many films outside of Shakespeare have also been reimagined for teens or even tween audiences. Dora and the Lost City of Gold (2019), for example, is a live-action film based on the animated series Dora the Explorer (2000–). In the animation, Dora is in elementary school; in the film she is sixteen-years­ old. The film aims to attract an audience that is at least somewhat older than the children who were targeted through the series. Film theorist Ken­ neth Chan names Amy Heckerling’s Clueless (1995) as another teen-spin film designed to “impress different demographics”; a film that reimagines Jane Austen’s Emma (1815), first filmed for television in 1948 in the UK.219 The notion of a new film being a “teen remake” is, in fact, identified in a range of reviews: • The drama Sorority Girl (1957) as “a teen remake of The Strange One (also 1957).”220 • The romcom Where the Boys Are (1960) as a “sort of teen remake of How to Marry a Millionaire (1953).”221 • The romcom Just One of the Guys (1985) as “sort of like a teen remake of Yentl (1983).”222 • The romcom The Sure Thing (1985) as a “teen remake of It Happened One Night [1934].”223 • The drama Cruel Intentions (1999) as “the teen remake of Dangerous Liai­ sons [1988],”224 itself a remake of the French film Les liaisons dangereuses (Dangerous Liaisons) (1959). • The romcom She’s All That (1999) as a “teen remake of Pygmalion, bet­ ter known as My Fair Lady [1964].”225

204 The creative remake • The sci-fi action film Rollerball (2002) as a “teen remake” of the 1975 film.226 • The thriller Swimfan (2002) “as a plodding teen remake” of Fatal Attrac­ tion (1987).227 • The romcom Love Don’t Cost a Thing (2003) as an “urban teen remake of Can’t Buy Me Love [1987].”228 • The family-comedy The Lizzie McGuire Movie (2003) as a “teen remake of Roman Holiday [1953].”229 • The horror film House of Wax (2005) as a “screaming-teen remake of the 1953 Vincent Price shocker.”230 • The horror film The Fog (2005) as “a hip teen remake of John Carpen­ ter’s classic chiller [1980].”231 • The horror Black Christmas (2006) as a “teen remake” of the 1974 film232 (a film remade again in 2019). • The thriller Disturbia (2007) as “essentially a teen remake of the classic Rear Window [1954].”233 • The comedy-drama LOL (2012) as a “teen-speak romcom remake of a French comedy of the same name” (2008).234 To this list we can add The First Time (2009), the remake of the Danish teencomedy Kaerlighed ved forste hik (Love at First Hiccough) (1999), discussed further in Chapter 6. It should be flagged that the meaning of the term teen remake is open for interpretation: while I construe it as a production that overtly targets teens, it can also mean a reproduction that stars teens – while these two things are often inextricably linked, they don’t have to be. Further, while in some examples – such as Disturbia – it is obvious that the originary film had a different audi­ ence in mind and thus, the remake is consciously teen-targeted in a way that the precursor wasn’t, for other examples like Black Christmas (1974/2004/2019), each film likely had the same teen audience in mind and, thus, the reproduc­ tion centers on targeting a new generation of teen viewers. Baz Luhrman’s Romeo + Juliet (1996) is an example of a particularly lucra­ tive teen remake. The film’s overt pitch to “the MTV generation”235 was considered instrumental in its box office and critical success. Through deployment of a hip soundtrack and fast editing (both discussed in Chap­ ter 6), as well as a young cast and more sex and violence, many boxes were ticked as related to teen turn-ons, and the film was able to successfully encapsulate its 1990s zeitgeist. The yen to target a teen market, of course, is nothing new: Druxman, for example, discusses how, following the success of Franco Zeffirelli’s Romeo and Juliet (1968), “the time was right for another remake of Wuthering Heights – one that would appeal to the youth market.”236 Resultantly, in 1970, the youth-targeted Wuthering Heights was released, with a young “hot” Timothy Dalton in the lead. Such examples illustrate the growing awareness of the value of the youth market and a desire to give a

The creative remake

205

target audience what they are assumed to want, even if this leads to critical failure and further perpetuates the negative discourse around remakes.237 A different way young people can be targeted is when a remake lowers the quotient of sex or violence as a means to make the new material more accessible to a broader audience. A range of reviews, for example, call-out a remake for being less sexy, or less scary: • The horror film The Amityville Horror (2005) described as a “tepid remake” of the 1979 film: “Frankly, it isn’t very scary.”238 • The musical-drama Fame (2009) as a “tepid”239 and “sanitized”240 remake of the 1980 film. • The horror film Embrace of the Vampire (2013) as a “stale” remake of the “sexy 1995 cult horror classic.”241 • The romance Endless Love (2014) as a “tepid”242 and “sanitized remake of Zeffirelli’s cult dud [1981].”243 • The made-for-TV musical Dirty Dancing (2017) – the remake of the 1987 film – as “just not dirty enough,”244 that it “never capitalizes on the crawling-out-of-your-skin horniness of the original”245 and that “what was once sexy, sultry and a little subversive has been sanitized and Disney-fied.”246 While, as noted, teens are often drawn to risqué material with more sex and violence, through the downplaying of such content a film can be permit­ ted a reduced classification in turn expanding the possible audience – potentially to include tweens – and facilitating broadcast on television as occurred with the 2017 Dirty Dancing. In Dana Barbuto’s Patriot Ledger discussion of the Fame remake, for example, she proposes audience-reach as the central explanation for the toning down of its content: This scaled back version comes as no surprise, though. The original carried an R rating and the remake is PG. After all, you can’t make money off your target audience if that demographic isn’t allowed to see the film.247 Danielle Ryan makes a similar point in her discussion of the aforemen­ tioned 2006 The Wicker Man: America’s The Wicker Man removed content to ensure a more lucra­ tive PG-13 rating. Instead of violence, the remake instead removed the sexual content from the original, weakening its ability to comment on gender and sexuality.248 While allowing more people into a cinema is one explanation for reduc­ ing the sex and violence, Mark Burg, producer of the Saw horror movies,

206 The creative remake posited another: “If you’re running Universal, you’re thinking, ‘I’ve got to hit the 10-year-old and the 40-year-old, because I’ve got to worry about that Wolfman [theme park] ride in two years.’ ”249 Here, Burg alludes to the kind of merchandizing opportunities discussed in Chapter 2 and the desire for studios to milk as much money as possible from audiences, thus dictating that a film – in this case, a remake – needs to be widely appealing and, nota­ bly, widely accessible. While in this section I’ve discussed studios pursuing the lucrative teen market, it’s also worth acknowledging that some of the toned-down modi­ fications observed in this chapter are done in pursuit of an even younger demographic. Children are pursued by studios through remakes in several ways, for example through the kinds of projects selected by studios for reproduction. Disney has been progressively remaking its animation backcatalogue as both live-action features and with hyper-real computer graph­ ics to both tap into an audience of nostalgic adults (Chapter 3) but also to carve out a new generation of young fans, as witnessed in the CGI-heavy and also arguably more woke manners of update – something I discuss else­ where in the context of the announcement of the live-action remake of The Little Mermaid (1989) with its promised African American mermaid protag­ onist.250 Disney is acknowledging that children today are more worldly than in earlier eras and, thus, content needs to be (re)made to appeal to them (as well as their often more woke parents). Another way that this younger demographic is courted is through adult (or young adult) narratives being specifically reimagined with children in mind. While this can be construed as a dumbing-down (Chapter 4), it’s also, obviously, a necessary storyline-simplification needed to make material suitable for its target demographic. Disney’s youth spins on Charles Dick­ ens’s A Christmas Carol (1843) – Mickey’s Christmas Carol (1983), The Mup­ pet Christmas Carol (1992) and A Christmas Carol (2009) – are examples of this, as are the many iterations of adult, canonical literature repackaged for children. Just as The Lion King (1994/2019) is frequently interpreted as Disney’s youth spin on Shakespeare’s Hamlet251 – a range of more explicit children’s adaptations exist: • Just as Disney adapted A Christmas Carol several times, the same story has been reproduced by several other studios for an intended family audience, for example as Mister Magoo’s Christmas Carol (1962), The Stingiest Man in Town (1978), Bugs Bunny’s Christmas Carol (1979), Brer Rabbit’s Christmas Carol (1992), A Flintstones Christmas Carol (1994), Bah, Humduck! A Looney Tunes Christmas (2006), An All Dogs Christmas Carol (1998), Barbie in a Christmas Carol (2008) and The Smurfs: A Christmas Carol (2011). • A range of other Dickens stories have been remade specifically for chil­ dren including the animated films Oliver Twist (1974), A Tale of Two Cities (1983) and David Copperfield (1993).

The creative remake

207

• Along with A Christmas Carol, Disney has also produced children’s ver­ sions of other adult narratives including The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) and its sequel The Hunchback of Notre Dame 2: The Secret of the Bell (2002), The Prince and the Pauper (1990), The Prince and the Surfer (1999), A Modern Twain Story: The Prince and the Pauper (2007) and Mickey, Don­ ald, Goofy: The Three Musketeers (2004). • Along with the aforementioned A Flintstones Christmas Carol, HannaBarbera produced a range of animated children’s adaptations of classic literature (and also adaptations of classic films) including The Count of Monte Cristo (1983), The Good, the Bad, and Huckleberry Hound (1988) and Scooby-Doo! in Arabian Nights (1994). • Shakespeare’s plays have been adapted in a range of children’s nar­ ratives including as the British series Shakespeare: The Animated Tales (1992–1994), and as Gnomeo & Juliet (2011). • The sequel to Gnomeo & Juliet was, in fact, Sherlock Gnomes (2018), a chil­ dren’s reimagining of the Sherlock Holmes stories. The Arthur Conan Doyle stories were also adapted for children in the Canadian series The Adventures of Shirley Holmes (1996). Worth also mentioning is the children’s television series Wishbone (1995– 1998), premised around retellings of classic literature with the central char­ acter, Wishbone the dog, as the protagonist. As discussed in Chapter 4 as related to Disney’s adaptations of The Hunch­ back of Notre Dame and The Little Mermaid, in the process of repurposing material for children, the darker endings of the originary material – for example, the hanging of Esmeralda in Victor Hugo’s novel The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1831) or the suicide of Ariel in Hans Christian Andersen’s The Little Mermaid (1837) – are, obviously, dramatically altered, thus mean­ ing that not only are these narratives dumbed-down in pursuit of a broader audience, but they’re also sanitized. While toning down material can be part of audience expansion efforts, it’s also worth noting that sometimes the reverse occurs where material is made more adult. Such an effort can be about specifically courting adults and, potentially, also appealing to older teens who pine to be grown-up and who actively seek out material that is more violent and sexual. Coleman discusses this in her work on horror: [A]udiences 25 years and younger appreciate violence and special effects-heavy, plot-light fare. . . . Simply re-releasing original, clas­ sic horror films cannot cut it, as this new generation has grown up on a healthy, modern diet of violent media. The coming cycle of horror films have to negotiate with three issues – targeting youth market, performing in a media market in which violence is already ubiquitous, and competing with the popularity of (violent) video games.252

208 The creative remake With this in mind, in the next section, I examine how films are remade through a conscious targeting of an adult audience via more grown-up inclusions. The old(er) Just as children and the tween market are lucrative for studios, older demo­ graphics are also sought. As related to older audiences, studios are interested in attracting the nostalgia crowd as explored in Chapter 3, as well as adult and older teen audiences who crave material that’s a bit more “grown-up.” “Grown-up” can center on stories involving older people or can involve mate­ rial reimagined as more serious or intellectual (and thus, instead of being dumbed-down, are made deeper and more complex). In the context of remaking, such reimaginings commonly involve incorporating more mature themes, and in practice this often means making material darker, grittier and inserting more sex and/or violence: just as classic literature can be dumbeddown and sanitized for children, stories originally intended for children can be reworked for adults by being sexed-up or made more gory. Debo­ rah Krieger writing for The Awl, spotlights this trend, observing “the type of remakes in development these days consistently emerge under a cloud of Dark and Edgy.”253 Krieger points to Riverdale (2016–), the “darker” revival of the Archie Comics, as well as the modernizing of the period-drama Anne of Green Gables – filmed many times since 1919 – as Anne with an E (2017–) as evi­ dence of a move toward remaking old material as comparatively more adult: “the way to make them seem appropriate is to remove the childish aspects and go the ‘darker-and-grittier’ route, which results in popcorn movies attacking real-world issues with varying degrees of success.”254 As Krieger argues, “if light and fluffy is designated for children, then the converse applies: adults (and, increasingly, millennials) apparently require more ‘serious’ (and more violent or sexual) entertainment.”255 Krieger, like several critics, observes that the “grittier remake” has, in fact, become a cliché in Hollywood. Charles Bramesco in Rolling Stone terms this preoccupation as “grit-wave,”256 and Men­ delson criticizes the action-drama The Fantastic Four (2015) – the remake of the 2005 film – as “a generic, dark and gritty remake.”257 While Krieger, Bramesco and Mendelson imply that “grit-wave” is a rela­ tively new phenomenon, darker and grittier remakes, in fact, have been made for decades, something spotlighted in a range of reviews where a reproduction is called out as being a more “grown up” version of its predecessor: • The thriller Reflections of Murder (1974) as a “gritty remake” of the French film Les diaboliques (1955).258 • The musical-drama A Star is Born (1976) as a “edgier interpretation” of the 1937 and 1954 films.259 • The crime-drama Scarface (1983) as a “gritty remake” of the 1932 film.260

The creative remake

209

• The sci-fi drama 1984 (1984) as a “gritty remake” of the 1956 film.261 • The thriller Kiss of Death (1995) as a “gritty remake” of the 1947 film.262 • The aforementioned crime-drama Get Carter (2000) as a “dark remake” of the 1971 film.263 • The adventure film Planet of the Apes (2001) as a “dark remark” of the 1968 film.264 • The television movie Fantasy Island (2002) as a “dark remake” of the television series (1977–1984).265 • The aforementioned fantasy film Charlie and the Chocolate Factory as a “dark remake” of Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory.266 • The sci-fi series Battlestar Galactica (2004–2009) as a “dark remake” of Battlestar Galactica (1978–1979).267 • The crime-comedy Fun With Dick and Jane (2005) as a “darker remake” of the 1977 film.268 • The comedy-drama The Bad News Bears (2005) as an “edgy remake” of the 1976 film.269 • The crime-drama Night Stalker (2005–2006) as a “disturbing remake” of the series Kolchak: The Night Stalker (1974–1974).270 • The sci-fi War of the Worlds (2005) as a “shockingly dark remake” of the 1953 film.271 • The crime-drama Miami Vice (2006) as a “dark remake” of the TV series (1984–1990),272 as a “darker remake”273 and also as a “grittier remake.”274 • The sci-fi series Bionic Woman (2007) as a “dark remake” of the 1976– 1978 series.275 • The thriller Funny Games (2007) as an “uber-disturbing remake” of the 1997 Austrian film.276 • The horror film Mother’s Day (2010) as an “ultra disturbing remake” of the 1980 film.277 • The horror film Maniac (2012) as a “deeply disturbing remake” of the 1980 film.278 • The fairy tale Snow White and the Huntsman (2012) as a “dark remake” of the classic tale (Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs [1937]),279 and as a “dark remake of the classic story.”280 • The superhero film The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) as a “grittier remake” of Spider-Man (2002),281 and as being a “grimdark remake.”282 • The superhero film Man of Steel (2013) as a “dark remake” of Superman (1978).283 • The family-comedy Annie (2014) as a “gritty remake” of the 1982 film.284 • The crime-drama The Gambler (2014) as a “gritty remake” of the 1974 film.285 • The fantasy Emerald City (2016–2017) as a “gritty remake” of The Wizard of Oz (1939).286 • The live-action The Jungle Book (2016) as a “dark remake.”287 • The New Zealand children’s adventure series Terry Teo (2016–) as a “grittier remake” of The Adventures of Terry Teo (1985).288

210 The creative remake • The Western The Magnificent Seven (2016) as a “gritty remake” of the 1960 film.289 • The horror film It (2017) as a “darker remake” of the 1990 mini-series.290 • The horror series The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina (2018–) as a “dark version” and “darker remake” of the sitcom Sabrina, the Teenage Witch (1996–2003).291 • The sitcom Bless this Mess (2019–) as an “edgier Green Acres [1965–1971].”292 During the course of writing this book, darker remakes of The Witches (1990)293 and The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)294 were also announced. Darker and grittier can encompass many qualities. In the case of the Annie remake, for example, the remake’s new star (Quvenzhané Wallis) is African American, so the material became racially darker (an idea explored further in Chapter 6). Such adjectives can also describe mood, tone, aesthetics and, notably subject matter. Elsewhere I discuss remakes that are made more adult and edgy by being remade as sexier,295 but a darker and grittier tone can also involve a remake made scarier, something also observed in a range of reviews: • The sci-fi film Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) as a “solid and scary” remake of the 1956 film.296 • The Christmas fantasy Scrooged (1988) as an “unseasonally scary remake” of A Christmas Carol.297 • The Blob (1988) as a “scary” remake of the 1958 sci-fi film.298 • Village of the Damned (1995) as a “scary remake” of the 1960 horror film.299 • The mini-series The Shining (1997) as a “quieter, scarier remake” of the 1980 horror film.300 • The Ring (2002) as “a genuinely scary remake of the cult Japanese hor­ ror film” Ringu (The Ring) (1998).301 • The Grudge (2004) as a “scary remake” of the Japanese horror film JuOn: The Grudge [2002].”302 • The aforementioned The Amityville Horror (2005) as a “scary remake” of the 1979 film.303 • The adventure film The New Poseidon Adventure (2005) as a “scary remake” of The Poseidon Adventure (1972).304 • The Omen (2006) as a “scary” remake of the 1976 horror film.305 • Fright Night (2011) as a “scarier remake” of the 1985 horror film.306 • Evil Dead (2013) as a “scarier remake” of the 1981 horror film,307 and as a “very scary remake.”308 • The fairy tale Maleficent (2014) as a “scarier remake of Sleeping Beauty [1959].”309 • Poltergeist (2015) as a “solid, scary remake” of the 1982 horror film.310 • The aforementioned The Jungle Book (2016) as a “scary remake” of the 1967 film.311

The creative remake

211

• The live-action adventure film Pete’s Dragon (2016) as a “snappy, scary remake” of the 1977 animation.312 • The live-action Beauty and the Beast (2017) as a “scarier remake” of the 1991 animation.313 • Pet Sematary (2019) as a “scary remake” of the 1989 horror film.314 Francis also spotlights heightened scariness in his comparison of the 1959 and 1999 versions of the horror film House on Haunted Hill: There are clear differences in the narrative between the two movies: the remake features more payoff in the reward money, there are more deaths and the audience is given proof that the ghosts exist. The use of skeletons on strings has also been thrown out and replaced by com­ puter graphics to enhance the presence of ghosts and update the movie aesthetic for a 1999 audience.315 Several critics similarly observe the increased violence in a remake as a means of modern update and as a way to establish contrast with the pre­ decessor. Comparing the horror movie The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) with the 2003 remake, for example, Knöppler notes, “As in most horror remakes, the depiction of violence is more drastic and more credible, even though the effects of chainsaw wounds are still left to the viewers’ imagi­ nation.”316 Contrasting the same two films, media theorist Ryan Lizardi observes that in the first film “there are only two characters whose wounds are shown, compared to the remake in which every character carries evi­ dence of trauma.”317 While, as discussed throughout this volume, there is not only one trajectory for filmmaking – after all, sometimes movies are remade as more violent and at other times less so – the examples discussed in this section are indicative of efforts to modernize through the pushing of boundaries and the testing of audience appetites for fear and gore. Scarier additions in a remake can be explained by several factors. First, with some films – notably so Disney titles – the production needs to do double-duty and entertain parents as well as their children, thus it’s no sur­ prise that the material looks more grow-up than the earlier incarnation; the objective is to lure both generations into the cinema with the understand­ ing that children today are likely more familiar with graphic content than their parents would have been at the same age. In cases where the mode of delivery changes – from animation to live-action – hyperreal CGI pro­ ductions will always seem scarier than hand-drawn material, and this is just a consequence of modern aesthetics and enhanced filmmaking technol­ ogy, akin to how color films commonly seem scarier than black and white films. Another explanation relates to audience expectations of – and desire for – more violence. Film historian Barry Salt, for example, examines why Psycho (1998) failed at the box office. One explanation he offers is: “after 40 years the mass audience for ‘slasher’ films has to demand more grue­ some murders per hour. In fact one in every ten minutes or so.”318 For a new

212 The creative remake production to seem appropriately modern, therefore, there is an expecta­ tion that the amount of violence is increased. With this in mind, grittier and darker remakes are, invariably, also more violent and gory as flagged in many reviews: • The aforementioned horror film The Last House on the Left (1972) as a “bloody remake” of the drama Jungfrukällan (The Virgin Spring) (1960).319 • Cat People (1982) as a “explicit and bloody remake” of the 1942 horror film.320 • The Thing (1982) as a “bloody remake” of the aforementioned The Thing from Another World (1951).321 • The aforementioned sci-fi The Fly (1986) as a “gorier remake” of the 1958 film.322 • The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) as “a much gorier remake” of the 1974 horror film.323 • The Hills Have Eyes (2006) as a “gorier” remake of the 1977 horror film.324 • The Wolf Man (2010) as a “considerably gorier” remake of the 1941 hor­ ror film.325 • Fright Night (2011) as a “sexier, bloodier” remake of the 1985 horror film.326 • The Mechanic (2011) as a “gored-up/sexed up” remake of the 1972 thriller film.327 • Carrie (2013) as a “unnecessarily gory” remake of the 1976 horror film.328 • Evil Dead (2013) as “unapologetically gory remake” of the 1981 horror film.329 • Suspiria (2018) as a “gory remake” of the 1977 horror film.330 • Hellboy (2019) as a “gory remake” of the 2004 horror film.331 In film theorist Andrew Scahill’s work on remakes, he flags how grittier and darker are not only synonyms for modern but are a means – akin to genreswaps discussed earlier – to distance a new production from its predecessor: The reboot seeks to make a familiar narrative legible as ‘modern’ within a more contemporary cinematic style. Often this means ‘rescu­ ing’ texts from being read as ironic or camp with an infusion of realism and violence, as is the case with Dark Knight [2008] (Batman), Man of Steel [2013] (Superman), even Miami Vice [2006]).332 Arguably part of the reason audiences didn’t quite know how to receive the 1998 Psycho, for example, was because it didn’t do what is expected of a contemporary remake and update the amount of blood and gore to cater to the appetites of a new generation, certainly so for the audience of a modern

The creative remake

213

“thriller.” In turn, the film is rendered as an art project at best but more commonly as seeming ignorant of decades of evolved tastes, and appearing anachronistic. Elsewhere I discuss how remakes often have to include more sex as a way to not only look modern but also to ensure that the new film doesn’t get construed – as noted by Scahill – as camp or ironic, as occurred with films like the remade The Stepford Wives (2004), which had none of the discern­ ible darkness of its 1975 predecessor. A similar claim can be made of the many film adaptations of television shows, which, decades on – and without updating the levels of sex or violence – can only be read as camp, if not as satire. In the final section of this chapter, I examine autoremakes, where directors – for a range of reasons, including those pertaining to creativity – revisit their own works.

The director’s do-over Cecil B. DeMille directed the drama The Squaw Man in 1913 and then remade it in 1918 and again in 1931. Erin Reinholtz in her work on DeMille suggests that he was “the only director in motion picture history to remake the same film three times.”333 Director John Ford, though, is also thought to have also made three versions of the one film, making the silent Marked Men (1919), then remaking it as Three Bad Men (1926) and then as 3 Godfathers (1948). Howard Hawks is also argued to have filmed the same story thrice as Rio Bravo (1959), El Dorado (1967) and Rio Lobo (1970). The fact, however, that the Ford and Hawks films have different names and plot deviations makes their status as remakes more contested than the three versions of The Squaw Man where each pivotal element – story, title, genre – was retained. Regardless, three versions of the same material by the one director is rare: much less so, however, is two takes, which is common enough to have its own label – autoremake. Autoremakes illustrate many of the concepts dis­ cussed throughout this chapter whereby a director returns to their earlier production and (re)makes a new iteration with the intent of fixing errors taking advantage of new technology and breathing new life into an old pro­ ject. Before examining the rationales for autoremakes, it is useful to pro­ vide a survey of directors and their do-overs: • Lisa Azuelos remade her French romcom Lol (2008) in the US as LOL (2012). • Géla Babluani, mentioned already in this chapter, remade his French crime-drama 13 Tzameti (2005) in the US as 13 (2010). • Reginald Barker remade his silent drama The Great Divide (1925) as a talkie in 1929. • Ole Bornedal remade his Dutch thriller Nattevagten (Nightwatch) (1994) in the US as Nightwatch (1997).

214 The creative remake • Tod Browning remade his silent crime-drama Outside the Law (1920) as a talkie in 1930. Browning also remade his silent horror film London After Midnight (1927) as the talkie Mark of the Vampire (1935). • Frank Capra remade his comedy-drama Broadway Bill (1934) as Riding High (1950), as well as his comedy-drama Lady for a Day (1933) as Pocket­ ful of Miracles (1961). • John Carpenter remade his horror film The Fog (1980) as Village of the Damned (1995). • Vidhu Vinod Chopra remade his Indian thriller Parinda (Bird) (1989) in the US as Broken Horses (2015). • Peter Ho-Sun Chan remade his Hong Kong romance Tian mi mi (Com­ rades: Almost a Love Story) (1996) in the US as The Love Letter (1999). • David Cronenberg remade his horror film Shivers (1975) as Rabid (1977). • Boaz Davidson remade his Israeli teen-comedy Eskimo Limon (Lemon Popsicle) (1978) in the US as The Last American Virgin (1982). • DeMille not only made three versions of his film The Squaw Man but also two versions of The Ten Commandments (1923/1956) and remade his drama The Golden Chance (1915) as Forbidden Fruit (1921). • John Farrow remade his thriller Five Came Back (1939) as Back From Eter­ nity (1956). • Emilio Fernández remade his Mexican drama Enamorada (1946) in the US as The Torch (1950). • Ford, as noted, remade the silent film Marked Men as Three Bad Men and then as 3 Godfathers. He also remade the aforementioned romance Red Dust as Mogambo, as well as the romcom Judge Priest (1934) as The Sun Shines Bright (1953). • Sidney Franklin made his biopic The Barretts of Wimpole Street in 1934 and remade it in 1956. • Michael Haneke remade his aforementioned Austrian thriller Funny Games (1997) in the US in 2007. • Hawks remade Rio Bravo as El Dorado and Rio Lobo as mentioned earlier, as well as his screwball comedy Ball of Fire (1941) as the musical A Song is Born (1949). • Alfred Hitchcock made his thriller The Man Who Knew Too Much in the UK in 1934 and then in the US in 1956. Hitchcock also made Mary (1931), which was a German-language version of his film Murder! (1930), shot simultaneously. • Tobe Hooper remade his horror film The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) as Crocodile (2000). • Sebastián Lelio remade his Chilean drama Gloria (2013) in the US as Gloria Bell (2018). • Anatole Litvak remade his French drama L’équipage (Flight Into Dark­ ness) (1935) in the US as The Woman I Love (1937).

The creative remake

215

• Ernst Lubitsch remade his comedy The Marriage Circle (1924) as One Hour With You (1932) and remade his comedy Kiss Me Again (1925) as That Certain Feeling (1941). • Dick Maas remade his Dutch horror De lift (The Lift) (1983) in the US as Down (2001). • Michael Mann, as mentioned, remade his made-for-television crimedrama L.A. Takedown (1989) as the cinema release Heat (1995). • George Marshall remade his comedy-Western Destry Rides Again (1939) as Destry (1954), and remade his horror-comedy The Ghost Breakers (1940) as Scared Stiff (1953). • Leo McCarey remade his romance Love Affair (1939) as An Affair to Remember (1957). • Michael Miller remade his crime-drama Jackson County Jail (1976) as the television movie Outside Chance (1978). • Andy Milligan remade his horror The Ghastly Ones (1968) as Legacy of Blood (1978). • Jean Negulesco remade his romance Three Coins in the Fountain (1954) as The Pleasure Seekers (1964). • Wilfred Noy remade his British silent film The Lost Chord (1917) in the US in 1925. • Danny Pang and Oxide Pang remade their Thai crime-drama Bangkok Dangerous (2000) in the US in 2008. • Jean-Marie Poiré remade his French comedy Les visiteurs (The Visitors) (1993) in the US as Just Visiting (2001). • Sam Raimi remade his horror film Evil Dead (1981) as Evil Dead II (1987). • Ken Scott remade his aforementioned Canadian comedy-drama Starbuck (2011) in the US as Delivery Man (2013). • Takashi Shimizu remade his Japanese horror film Ju-on: The Grudge (2002) in the US as The Grudge (2004). • George Sluizer remade his Dutch thriller Spoorloos (The Vanishing) (1988) as The Vanishing (1993). • Frank Tuttle remade his silent comedy Miss Bluebird (1925) as the talkie Her Wedding Night (1930). • Akin to Hitchcock’s simultaneous productions of Mary and Murder!, Josef von Sternberg made an English and a German version of his drama The Blue Angel in the same year (1930). • Roger Vadim remade his French romance Et Dieu . . . créa la femme ( . . . And God Created Woman) (1956) in the US as And God Created Woman (1988). • Patricio Valladares remade his horror film En las afueras de la ciudad (Hidden in the Woods) (2012) in the US as Hidden in the Woods (2014). • Erik Van Looy remade his Belgian crime-drama Loft (2008) in the US (2014).

216 The creative remake • Francis Veber remade his comedy-crime drama French film Les Fugitifs (The Fugitives) (1986) in the US as Three Fugitives (1989). • Raoul Walsh remade his crime-drama High Sierra (1941) as Colorado Ter­ ritory (1949), and remade his romcom The Strawberry Blonde (1941) as One Sunday Afternoon (1948). • Roland West remade his silent thriller The Bat (1926) as the talkie The Bat Whispers (1930). • James Whale remade his horror film Frankenstein (1931) as the Bride of Frankenstein (1935) and his mystery A Kiss Before the Mirror (1933) as Wives Under Suspicion (1938) • John Woo remade his Hong Kong action-drama Zong heng si hai (Once a Thief) (1991) in the US as Once a Thief (1996). • Donald Wrye remade his romantic-drama Ice Castles (1978) in 2010. • William Wyler remade his aforementioned drama These Three (1936) as The Children’s Hour (1961).334 Before examining the motivations for autoremakes, it’s important to flag that not all of these remakes are acknowledged as such. While this is partly because of the stigma around remakes, there is also merit in ques­ tioning whether “remake” is always the appropriate word in the context of films made by the one director, particularly when a new production has a new title and new plot elements. I mentioned earlier, for exam­ ple, Hawks’s two alleged reproductions of El Dorado. While many scholars often discuss the films as remakes,335 this isn’t the only interpretation. Film theorist Christian Metz, for example, posits that the second and third film are “more of a systematic series of re-enactments.”336 Hawks himself denies the remake claim and argues, “I’ll often repeat a scene that I think worked well in another picture.”337 Further, a return to the same themes and stories – something that arguably makes a director’s entire catalogue seem remake-like even if they don’t quite fit the standard definition – may in fact just be part of an oeuvre. Verevis, for example, discusses “the suggestion that Hitchcock continually remakes or recom­ bines a limited number of personal themes and cinematic techniques.”338 His example is that Frenzy (1972) is often considered as Hitchcock’s own “Psycho revision.”339 In many of the autoremake examples listed earlier, directors made a film overseas and then remade it in the US: remaking it in English is, as explored in Chapter 4, undoubtedly motivated by greater distribution pos­ sibilities and an increased audience, as well, potentially, as access to a bigger, American-sized budget. These transnational autoremakes can also help directors launch a comparatively more lucrative American filmmaking career. Mentioned several times in this chapter are remakes produced to “fix” things that might have been broken in a predecessor. While this is an idea that applies to all remakes, the idea of fixing errors might be something motivating autoremakes even more acutely, where a filmmaker personally

The creative remake

217

wants to get something “right” and curate a legacy. Randle explores this in greater detail: The self-remake is often a meeting of ego and opportunity: Alfred Hitchcock disliked both the climax and the female heroism in his origi­ nal The Man Who Knew Too Much, and gladly tried it again to fulfill a contractual obligation for Paramount Pictures two decades later. The appraisal he offered Francois Truffaut, that ‘the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional,’ reads differently every time. Hitchcock told another interviewer: ‘I think [the earlier film] was more spontaneous – it had less logic. Logic is dull; you always lose the bizarre and the spontaneous.’340 An extension of this idea is that directors might want to revisit material to not only take advantage of new technology but, more personally, to flaunt their own honed skills as a filmmaker: as film programmer Jed Rapfogel commented in his discussion on autoremakes: “There’s the idea of some­ body having grown as an artist or having different tools at hand.”341 Jes­ sica Kiang, Oli Lyttelton and Rodrigo Perez discuss this in their IndieWire article on autoremakes, observing that “occasionally a filmmaker really wants a second go at a story they feel they didn’t do justice to.”342 Nick Horton discusses Hitchcock’s two versions of The Man Who Knew Too Much, identifying that the remake gave him the opportunity to demonstrate 22 years of honed craftsmanship: “The later film is undoubtedly the work of a master, and feels like one. The first film is of a director feeling his way, and is a bit rough around the edges in part.”343 Horton similarly discusses Raimi remaking Evil Dead, observing that it was a chance for him to get “things perfect this time round while still expanding upon their original mythos.”344 Discussed earlier were remakes produced because of a director’s crea­ tive inspiration. The same thing can also motivate autoremakes. Frank Capra, for example, explained why he remade Lady for a Day (1933) as A Pocketful of Miracles (1961), claiming: “I wanted to experiment with retell­ ing [writer] Damon Runyon’s fairy tale with rock-hard non-hero-gang­ sters.”345 Such an example can be likened to a painter or a writer wanting to tackle a story they’ve told before from a new perspective; that, akin to Bill Condon’s comments made earlier, a tale is perceived as still having something new to say and the same director – likely feeling some owner­ ship over the material; perhaps even having written it themselves – wants to be the one to say it. Connected to the notion of remaking with a bigger budget, better tools and honed skills, is directors being drawn to the opportunity to finally make the film they had always wanted to make. Earlier in this chapter I discussed Michael Mann finally getting to do justice to his script by remaking L.A. Takedown as Heat. Wilde, for example, similarly observes that Haneke had

218 The creative remake always wanted Funny Games to be made in the US; remaking his Austrian film a decade later gave him the opportunity to properly execute his vision: Haneke originally made his violent film for Americans, since we are a violence-obsessed society. Unfortunately, at the time of its original release, he was only able to create the film in German. Taking his ini­ tially unmet American-centric goals into account, Funny Games (2007) can be seen as a successful development within the process of his crea­ tive project.346 Directors’ do-overs are subject to all the same criticisms levelled at remakes more broadly – but are also subjected to more specific attacks. Film theorist Wheeler Winston Dixon discusses this: [T]he ill-advised footsteps of such directors as Géla Babluani, whose slavishly uninspired 2010 American remake of his brilliant 13 Tzameti (2005, titled simply 13) pretty much finished his career, or George Sluizer, whose watered-down and fatally compromised 1993 American remake of his 1988 hit Spoorloos (The Vanishing) also caused a major career setback.347 Simon Abrams argues something similar in Politico as related to Haneke remaking Funny Games: “The fact Haneke was remaking something he made in the first place – cashing-in on his own conceit, in the eyes of his critics – led people to despise it, and him, that much more.”348 In such examples, rather than being construed as executions of a creative vision – and, rather than autoremakes being likened to fine arts whereby it is perfectly nor­ mal for artists to produce multiple versions of one subject – instead, these remakes are looked upon more cynically and perceived as evidence of a creative lack on the part of directors. Worse – and returning to the issues of ego alluded to earlier in this chapter – instead of these autoremake projects being viewed as creative, they are criticized as indulgent or as a testimony to absent creativity. J.R. Jones in the Chicago Reader, for example, discusses this in the context of Haneke’s autoremake, diagnosing the reproduction as a kind of arrested development: Many creative professionals will tell you that revision is the most excit­ ing and rewarding part of the process. A painter may approach the same subject from multiple angles, and a composer may write varia­ tions on a theme, but in both cases they’re trying to tease as much inspiration out of the idea as possible. To take up the same material a decade later and execute it precisely the same way is to admit that you haven’t grown since then. If you were satisfied with it the first time, why do it over?349

The creative remake

219

While thus far I have presented creative reasons for an autoremake, it’s also important to flag some of the economic drivers. Earlier I quoted Howard Hawks who claimed, simply, that he remade Ball of Fire for the money. Ran­ dle similarly mentioned Hitchcock’s autoremake as, in part, attributable to contractual obligations with Paramount Pictures. Frank Capra’s explana­ tion for remaking Broadway Bill as Riding High was a little more complicated, albeit still financially motivated: I was under contact, and I had to finish two more pictures for them [Paramount Pictures], and nothing that I could suggest seemed to please them, because they all meant money. So in order to finish out this contract and get free again and on my own, I took what I thought were two pretty good subjects that wouldn’t cost too much money, and made them as fast as I could, in order to free myself from that contract. So the reasons for making Riding High and the next one, Here Comes the Groom [1951], were purely economic.350 Raoul Walsh also identified studio pressure as his motivation for remaking The Strawberry Blonde as One Sunday Afternoon: “Warners was pressed for a release, so we decided to remake The Strawberry Blonde as a musical.”351 A further financial motivator alluded to by Kiang, Lyttelton and Perez was that an autoremake may be part of a studio’s risk-aversion strategy (explored further in Chapter 2): “from the studio’s standpoint, if they’re already involved in the risk-averse game of remaking a film that’s proven successful, why not double down by hiring the original director too?”352 In such examples, studios seek to recapture the lightning in a bottle discussed in Chapter 2 by trying to reproduce as many elements from a successful predecessor as possible, including use of the same director. The hope here is that having the same auteur at the helm can reproduce – and, perhaps even extend – what was successful about the predecessor. This chapter examined – and problematized – the idea of creativity in remaking. Such ideas are expanded on in Chapter 6 in a discussion of fash­ ion and remakes aiming to be on trend.

Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Mee, 2017, 193.

Stenport and Traylor, 2015, 76.

Rosewarne, 2019a.

Rosewarne, 2019a.

Kay, 2010.

Stevens, 2017, 26.

In “Disney characters coming to life”, 2015.

Dunne, 1998, G1.

Pinkerton, 2016, 33.

220 The creative remake 10 Verevis, 2006; Lukas and Marmysz, 2009a; Bevan, 2013; Klein and Palmer, 2016; Knöppler, 2017 11 Klein and Palmer, 2016, 6. 12 In Chan, 2017. 13 In Francis Jr., 2013, 148. 14 In Natale, 1994. 15 In Weinraub, 1995. 16 In Maddox, 2010. 17 Schembri, 1994. 18 Lavin, 1996. 19 “Detecting a pointless remake”, 2007. 20 Blaustein, 2015. 21 Lowe, 2019. 22 Rosewarne, 2019e. 23 Drezner, 2018. 24 Horsley, 2005, 309. 25 Coleman, 2011, 198. 26 Russell, 1993. 27 Hinson, 1992. 28 Elliott, 2004. 29 “ ‘Death’ warmed over as a remake”, 2010. 30 Mendelson, 2013. 31 May, 2013. 32 Marcus, 2015. 33 Reheated is also used to criticize remakes. The thriller Cold Pursuit (2019) – the remake of the Norwegian film Kraftidioten (In Order of Disappearance) (2014) – is described as a “reheated black comedy” (Ide, 2019). The thriller Red Dawn (2012) – the remake of the 1984 – is described as “reheated Cold War leftovers” (Means, 2012). The musical Dirty Dancing (2017) is described as a “reheated attempt” at replicating the 1987 film (Schwedel, 2017). 34 Backer, 2012, 152. 35 Moore, 2016. 36 Barclay, 2001. 37 McGill, 2003. 38 “Farrelly brothers’ ‘Kid’ is a half-hearted remake”, 2007. 39 Orr, 2007. 40 Knight, 2009. 41 Hoff, 2008. 42 Miles, 2017. 43 “Delivery Man, review; Vince Vaughn stars in Delivery Man, a half-hearted remake of a film with a horrifically unpromising plot”, 2014. 44 Miller, 2017. 45 Porter, 2019. 46 In Kiang, Lyttelton and Perez, 2013. 47 Murphy, 1980. 48 In Beale, 1998. 49 Ariano, Nestruck and Knight, 2005. 50 Berton, 1997. 51 Orme, 1993b. 52 Cultural theorists Amanda Klein and R. Barton Palmer contend that all texts are “joined by various bonds to other texts and often participating in more than one series or grouping” (Klein and Palmer, 2016, 1). 53 In Francis Jr., 2013, 161. 54 Wilde, 2016.

The creative remake 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

221

Hutcheon and O’Flynn, 2013, 20. In Zanger, 2006, 17. Leitch, 2000. Thompson, 2005. Rosewarne, 2016a; Rosewarne, 2016c. Reviewing Beauty and the Beast (2017) for NPR, Andrew Lapin describes the film as “Disney’s expensive, soulless new live-action retelling” (Lapin, 2017). Reviewing Aladdin (2019) for Silver Screen Riot, Matt Oakes contends that the film “certainly has no soul to call its own” (Oakes, 2019). Reviewing The Lion King (2019) for IndieWire, David Ehrlich describes the film as a “soulless chimera of a film” (Ehrlich, 2019). Reviewing Dumbo (2019) for Film Inquiry, Asher Luberto describes the film as “a soulless remake” (Luberto, 2019). Willmore, 2017. “At the movies”, 2010. In Barnes, 2015. Wilson, 2015. “Stop hating remakes – you love them”, 2016. “Stop hating remakes – you love them”, 2016. Harney, 2002, 66. Murdoch, McGravie, Beattie, Anderson and Tomich, 2012. Limbacher, 1979, viii. Johnson, 2009b. Child, 2016. Klepper, 2005, 241. Harris, 2003. Frith, 1987. Casciato, 2014. “Good, bad and so-so dramas hit screens in search of ratings”, 1988. Movshovitz, 1991. Mauger, 1994. “The Guide”, 2005. Aguilar, 1998. Webster, 1998. Flynn, 1999. Epstein, 1999. Pfeifer, 2002. Lumenick, 2002. “Rewinding 2003’s top films”, 2003. Germain, 2005. Stone, 2005. Howell, 2007. Byrnes, 2011. Matthews, 2016. “Entertainment”, 2015. “ ‘Jungle Book’ is a new family film classic; Favreau has made the rare remake that actually improves on the original”, 2016. “Rock-hard action has plenty of Hart”, 2018. Lee, 2019. In discussing 1984 (1984), for example, Paul Mavis notes that the film “better capture[d] the overall tone of the novel” than the 1956 film (Mavis, 2001, 223). “100 best (and worst) movie remakes of all time”, 2019; Aronson, 2019; Bell, 2019; Whitington, 2019; “10 reboots that were better than the original”, 2019; O’Falt, 2018; Cohen, 2016; Roush, 2016; Striga, 2015; Acuna, 2013.

222 The creative remake 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111

112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134

135 136 137 138 139 140

Varndell, 2014, 9. Hornblow, 2002. Sepinwall, 2012, 243. In Schaefer, 2006. Howell, 2014. Orme, 1990. Druxman, 1975, 22. In Natale, 1994. In “Brown likes outwitting the bad guys”, 1991. In Lovell, 2004. Films that flew under the radar are ones that often get remade with audiences often completely unaware of their status as a reproduction. Justin Abarca lists a range of such examples in his BuzzFeed article, including: Angels in the Outfield (1994), the remake of the 1951 film; EDtv (1999), a remake of the Canadian film Louis 19, Le Roi des Ondes (Louis 19, King of the Airwaves) (1994); Scent of a Woman (1992), the remake of the Italian film Profumo di Donna (Scent of a Woman) (1974) and Jungle 2 Jungle (1997), the remake of the French film Un indien dans la ville (An Indian in the City) (1994) (Abarca, 2014). Ian Phillips’ Insider article on the same topic lists Meet the Parents (2000) as a remake of the 1992 indie film of the same name (Phillips, 2016). See also Beauvoir, 2011; Simic´, 2017; Mithaiwala, undated. In Donoughue, 2019. In Druxman, 1975, 165. Badmington, 2001, 14. Knöppler, 2017, 103. In Druxman, 1975, 123. Anderson, 2018. Hess, 2018. Randle, 2013. Epstein, 1998. Canby, 1985. Smith, 2004, 195. Kaufman, 1986. “Uninspired remake of Hitchcock’s Suspicion Brittle drama crumbles in the end”, 1988. Hurlburt, 1989. Cameron-Wilson and Speed, 1995, 141. Fox, 1993. Howe, 2000. “The horror, the horror”, 2008. “Film review: The Wolfman”, 2010. Persall, 2011. Vishnevetsky, 2016. Orr, 2019. As cultural theorists Jennifer Forrest and Leonard Koos observe, “While many remakes are indeed uninspired copies of their originals – probably in propor­ tion to the amount of uninspired ‘original’ films produced annually” (Forrest and Koos, 2002, 3). Rosewarne, 2019d. Francis Jr., 2013, 23. In Verevis, 2006, 20. “Ben-Hur is back”, 2016. In Verevis, 2006, 134. “Washington attends Pelham premiere”, 2009.

The creative remake

223

141 In Harvey, 2012. 142 In Kepler, 2015. 143 In McGraine, 2015. 144 In Brady, 2016. 145 In Lodge, 2017. 146 In Jagernauth, 2017. 147 In Feldman, 2018. 148 In Harvey, 2018. 149 Lukas and Marmysz, 2009b, 5. 150 In Forrest, 2002a, 311. 151 Grohmann, 1998. 152 McDonald, 2006, 77. 153 Travers, 2019. 154 Kahn, undated. 155 This film was also released as The Assassin (1992). 156 Frank, 1997, 34. 157 Ide, 2005. 158 Condon, 2017, 4. 159 DiLeo, 2017. 160 Rayner, 2013, 50. 161 Singer, 2008. 162 Wren, 2016, 22. 163 Rosewarne, 2019a. 164 Rosewarne, 2019a. 165 Rosewarne, 2019a. 166 Fussell, 2016. 167 Musetto, 2011a. 168 “Be prepared for inferior take on Disney classic”, 2019. 169 Rupra, 2019. 170 Mendelson, 2019. 171 Garcia and Wiseblood, 2019. 172 Klepper, 2005, 396. 173 Eyman, 2010, 166. 174 Kiang, Lyttelton and Perez, 2013. 175 Bullock, 2012. 176 Travers, 1998. 177 Greenberg, 1998, 115. 178 Nowlan and Nowlan, 1989, 146. 179 Perkins, 2015, 783. 180 Mendelson, 2013. 181 “ ‘Jungle Book’ is a new family film classic; Favreau has made the rare remake that actually improves on the original”, 2016. 182 Bickford, 2016. 183 Howick, 2007. 184 “New life for an old favourite”, 2015. 185 Tuttle, 2015. 186 Brinsford, 2018. 187 Loughrey, 2016. 188 Atchison, 2018. 189 Leitch, 2002, 47. 190 Knöppler, 2017, 10. 191 Howard, 2018; Walsh, 2018. 192 Lambie, 2011. 193 Eberwein, 1998, 30.

224 The creative remake 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243

Verevis, 2006. Hutcheon and O’Flynn, 2013, 45. Eberwein, 1998, 30. Hunter, 2009, 9. Harris and Maxwell, 2009. Aufderheide, 1998. Aufderheide, 1998, 192. Rosewarne, 2019a. Kaminsky, 1972; Thorne, 2010. Brode, 2012. Hutchinson, 2006, 183. Moats, 2014; Juan, 2018. Milberg, 1990, ix. Forrest, 2002b, 174. Forrest and Koos, 2002, 4. Forrest and Koos, 2002, 4. Forrest and Koos, 2002, 4. Druxman, 1975, 13. In Rapold, 2011. Ebert, 2000, 224 Heinze and Krämer, 2015, 8. Lemire, 2005. Hutcheon and O’Flynn, 2013, 120–121. Francis Jr., 2013, 3. Rosewarne, 2019a, 156–157. Chan, 2009, 8–9. Weldon, 1996, 119. Ehrenstein, Reed and Careff, 1982, 48. “Forgot About Summer School? Bummer! What About Nine More Eighties Com­ edies?” 2011. Scott, 1985. Grant, 2006, 17. Moh, 1999. Bullock, 2012. Russell, 2002. Robinson, 2004. Norman, 2003. “Weightless wonderwork with wow factor: The fable ‘Millions’ has moral conundrums and special effects to engage the whole family”, 2005. “Satellite pick of the day”, 2007. Adams, 2006. King, Undated. “Also Released”, 2012. Davies, 2016; Tatspaugh, 2007, 147. Druxman, 1975, 212. It’s worth noting that teen-targeted literary adaptations are also especially appealing to young people particularly if such works were on their school cur­ riculum and, thus, they have fresh familiarity with it. Booth, 2005. “Lame! Tepid remake of ‘Fame’ is going nowhere fast”, 2009. “Remake of ‘Fame’ is a dumbed down version”, 2009. Young, 2003. “Endless Love: Strong cast failed by tepid remake”, 2014. O’Sullivan, 2014.

The creative remake 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296

225

Streeter, 2018. Chaney, Harris, and Emami, 2017. Venable, 2017. Barbuto, 2009. Ryan, 2015. Johnson, 2009a. Rosewarne, 2019c. Gavin, 1996; Butler, 2014; Perrotta, 2015; Coleman, 2011, 199. Krieger, 2017. Krieger, 2017. Krieger, 2017. Bramesco, 2016. In Weinman, 2015. Lekich, 1987. Altmann, 2018. “Satellite Films”, 2015. Norman, 1990. Simon, 1995. Luksic, 2000. Pete, 2001. Zerbisias, 1998. “Film of Dahl classic on top”, 2005. Chess, 2008, 87. “More ideas reprised”, 2006. Demarco, 2005. Morrow, 2005. Parker, 2018. Rahner, 2006. “Director, stars defend darker remake that leaves pastels back in the ’80s; Fire & ‘Vice’ ”, 2006. “Miami Vice tops UK film chart on debut weekend”, 2006. Thompson, 1998. Anderson, 2008. “Handy panda is back in action”, 2011. Sneider, 2012. Bannon, 2011. Oliver, 2016, 134. Smith, 2012. Mendelson, 2018. “Man of Steel is solid gold at the box office”, 2013. Myers, 2016. “Walt Disney”, 2015. Egner, 2017. Taylor, 2016. Blackstock, 2016. Syme, 2016. Delgado, 2017. McHenry, 2018. Easton, 2019. Carpenter, 2018. Oh, 2019. Rosewarne, 2019a. “TV: Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)”, 2003.

226 The creative remake 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334

“Scrooged (Movie, 1988)”, 1997. Stanley, 1988; “A re-formed ‘Blob’ jells into a scary remake of a cult hit”, 1988. Thomas, 1995. Beck, 1996. Carnevale, 2003. Stratton, 2004. “Mailmovies: Top 10 films”, 2005. Rohan, 2005. Janusonis, 2006; Rickey, 2006; “Alan Frank’s DVD Slot”, 2006. “Movie bits”, 2011. Frank, 2013. “Bruce Campbell, Fede Alvarez talk up ‘very scary’ remake of ‘Evil Dead’ ”, 2013. Strauss, 2014. Lowe, 2015. Gire, 2016a. Gire, 2016b. “Common Sense Media What parents need to know”, 2017. Torcato, 2019a. Francis Jr., 2013, 101–102. Knöppler, 2017, 199. Lizardi, 2010, 116. Salt, 2016, 475. McCardle, 1998. Martin, 1994. Hunt, 1990. Hoffman, 2005. Macor, 2010, 47. Seymour, 2006. Bussey, 2015. Maerz, 2011. Hicks, 2011. “Stephen King’s horror classic gets an unnecessarily gory remake more blood, wasted”, 2013. Serba, 2013. Cohen, 2018. Torcato, 2019b. Scahill, 2016, 317. Reinholtz, 165. While this list focuses on directors remaking their own films in the US, the autoremake is not a US-only phenomenon. In Germany for example, Rudolf Meinert made his silent-drama Die elf Schill’schen Offiziere (The Eleven Schill Officers) (1926) with sound in 1932. In Japan, Yasujirô Ozu directed Ukikusa monogatari (A Story of Floating Weeds) (1934) and then remade it with sound as Ukikusa (Floating Weeds) (1959). Also in Japan, Hideo Nakata made the horror film Joyû-rei (Don’t Look Up) (1996) and remade it as Gekijourei (Ghost Theater) (2015). In Italy, Antonio Margheriti remade his own film Danza macabre (A Taste of Blood) (1964) as Nella stretta morsa del ragno (Web of the Spider) (1971). In India, director Kamal remade his Mazhayethum Munpe (1995) as Zameer (2005); Gautham Vasudev Menon remade his own Vinnaithandi Varuvaya (2010) as Ekk Deewana Tha (2012); S. Shankar remade his own Mudhalvan (2000) as Nayak: The Real Hero (2001) and A.R. Murugadoss remade his films Ghajini (2005) as Ghajini (2008) and Thuppakki (2012) as Holiday (2014). In China, Yonggang Wu remade his film Shen nu (The Goddess) (1394) as Yanzhi Lei (Rouge Tears)

The creative remake

335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352

227

(1938). A non-US transnational example of this is Ahn Sang-hoon making the thriller Beulraindeu (Blind) (2011) in South Korea and then remaking it in China as Wo shi zheng ren (The Witness) (2015). Chapman, 2003; McGhee, 1990; Meyer, 1979. Metz, 2010, 368. In Druxman, 1975, 171. Verevis, 2006, 63. Verevis, 2006, 65. Randle, 2013. In Rapold, 2011. Kiang, Lyttelton and Perez, 2013. Horton, 2014. Horton, 2014. In Eberwein, 1998, 18. Wilde, 2016. Dixon, 2013, 56. Abrams, 2011. Jones, 2008. In Poague, 2004, 62. In Druxman, 1975, 135. Kiang, Lyttelton and Perez, 2013.

6

The fashionable remake

Harnessing the fashion of the day is a reproduction rationale that blends the economic drivers discussed in Chapter 2 with some of the creative motives explored in Chapter 5. Such remakes are intended to take advan­ tage of things happening in the zeitgeist – be they related to social or politi­ cal concerns or the popularity of certain genres – to both appear modern and to make a profit. Harnessing the preoccupations of a culture can put a creative spin on old material to help to build a new audience in a new era. I begin this chapter by exploring the blur that often exists between films that simply take advantage of a trend versus those that are actually remakes. I examine what it means for a new production to look suitably modern and also to feel modern. I investigate genre trends whereby the appetite for a certain kind of film – be it musicals, for example or biblical epics – leads to a slew of remakes capitalizing on the day’s filmmaking fads. Remakes that update old stories with modern politics are examined, and I explore the kinds of foreign remakes that have ushered in trends in US transnational remakes. I end this chapter by analyzing remakes that completely eschew fashion – ignoring modern genre tastes or political movements – and thus which often get condemned as old-fashioned and anachronistic.

The fine line between trend and remake A 2018 BBC article explored the phenomena of “twin films” whereby two movies with incredibly similar storylines are released within a very short space of time. Keith Simanton, a senior film editor with the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), explores this phenomenon: I bet if you went out right now you could find two, three or more scripts which are about the same thing and haven’t been made. . . . For exam­ ple, we went a long stretch without any movies about Dunkirk. Yet in 2017 we had two major features about it – Darkest Hour and Dunkirk. . . . Then there are instances where creative types get put together and they click, and even though the exact movie they coalesced for doesn’t get made, they stick together and make something vaguely familiar. . . . For example, Mark Wahlberg and Will Ferrell were brought together for

The fashionable remake

229

the action-buddy cop flick that eventually became Cop Out [2010]. They ended up not starring in that film but moved on to a different studio with a different script, but with the same feeling, called The Other Guys [2010].1 A range of such examples exist whereby two films with striking similarity are released in very close proximity, for example: • The modern retellings of the 1937 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs ani­ mation: Snow White and the Huntsman (2012) and Mirror Mirror (2012). • Romcoms about casual sex: No Strings Attached (2011) and Friends with Benefits (2011). • Dark period-dramas about magicians: The Illusionist (2006) and The Prestige (2006). • Volcano-themed disaster films: Dante’s Peak (1997) and Volcano (1997). • Family films about talking pigs: Babe (1995) and Gordy (1995). • Political action-thrillers about Washington under siege: Olympus Has Fallen (2013) and White House Down (2013). • Virtual reality themed sci-fi films: The Matrix (1999) and eXistenZ (1999). • Crime-comedies about dogs working with the police: Turner & Hooch (1989) and K-9 (1989). • Time-travel comedy-dramas: Back to the Future (1985) and Peggy Sue Got Married (1985). • Biopics about Oscar Wilde: Oscar Wilde (1960) and The Trials of Oscar Wilde (1960). While in some cases – like Snow White and the Huntsman and Mirror Mirror – both films are retellings of the same fairy tale, such productions aren’t remakes of each other given that barely months separate their release dates. Twin films are relevant to this discussion though, because they often point to things happening in the broader culture whereby both movies exist in the same zeitgeist and both harness the same cultural preoccupations for the same commercial purposes. Elsewhere, for example, I discuss films like The Matrix and eXistenZ as instances of a slew of films released in the 1990s that tackled the emerging media revolution of the internet and tapped into brewing cultural fears about new technology: The notion of the Internet as a fearful place is a theme apparent in numerous screen examples . . . particularly those produced in the ear­ liest years of the World Wide Web – exploit[ing] fears and anxieties about new technology. The idea that the Internet can make a person, particularly a young person, vulnerable has much traction in screen fiction.2 The Matrix and eXistenZ were two examples of many films released in the 1990s exploring the capacities – and dangers – of emerging cyber

230 The fashionable remake technology. Twin films, while not remakes of each other, point to the preoc­ cupations of a culture at a given time and the influence this has on studio output. With studios being risk-averse (Chapter 2), the “perfect timing” for a pro­ ject is often sought. This might mean holding back a project until another studio has success with something similar and then capitalizing on an audi­ ence that has demonstrated interest in a certain theme and is likely primed for more like-content. The found footage horror film The Blair Witch Project (1999) is an example of this: the surprising success of this new-style hor­ ror film led to the commissioning of a slew of like-projects to capitalize on its success. Remaking can play a role in this process whereby suitable past properties are tweaked via remaking to harness a fad or fashion; something that is often cheaper than commissioning a completely new film (Chap­ ter 2). The aforementioned cultural fears of cyberspace, for example, ush­ ered in the production of the Japanese film Kairo (Pulse) (2001) – about ghosts finding victims through internet-connected computers – and then, notably, led to that film being remade for US audiences as Pulse (2006). Similarly, the popularity of found footage horror films sparked by The Blair Witch Project likely motivated the Spanish found footage horror film [Rec] (2007) and then, more relevantly, its US transnational remake Quarantine (2008). (Worth noting, in 2016, The Blair Witch Project was remade). Just as trends and risk-aversion can motivate remaking, the concept of diminishing returns – an economic concept I’ve discussed elsewhere in this book – provides further justification. Film theorists Anna Westerstål Sten­ port and Garrett Traylor apply this idea to their work on screen adapta­ tions, noting that: “the law of diminishing returns has long affected the release of sequels and merchandise in the movie industry, which suggests that it is better to capitalize on the phenomenon while it is fresh.”3 With the knowledge that every trend will eventually wane, it makes economic sense for studios to milk a fad – to release as much like-content as can be sustained – before audiences move on. Soraya McDonald in The Washington Post discusses this in the context of the trend of sex-swapped remakes like the 2016 remake of Ghostbusters (1984): Chalk this up to the nature of the risk-averse film industry and its posi­ tion as a follower of trends rather than a creator of new ones. Success there is defined by finding something that works and then squeezing as many franchises and merchandise out of it as capitalism and attention spans will allow.4 The idea of diminishing returns also relates to the half-life of films explored in Chapter 3 whereby remakes are nowadays often produced long before a predecessor is forgotten, to take advantage of a trend. Studios understand that it’s better to, proverbially, strike while the iron is hot, rather than wait and risk a subject matter/style/genre going out of fashion.

The fashionable remake

231

A major driving force for all new film productions – but particularly so for remakes – is the production of material that seems contemporary. A central component of this is material that looks new. Remaking old films to appear fresh and to appeal to modern tastes is thus a key feature of reproduction.

A modern aesthetic Along with accusations that remakes are somehow redundant, a critique often levelled is that if the original film was so good and worth revisiting, why not just rerelease the excellent original? Studio disinclination to do this is multifaceted. First, the audience for rereleases is incredibly limited. Coercing an audience to pay to see – in a cinema! – a film that they can gen­ erally access through cheaper means at home is a fraught business model. Second, a 2017 study suggests that less than a quarter of millennials have watched – from start to finish – a film made in the 1940s or 1950s and only one-third has seen a film made in the 1960s.5 Highlighted here is a reality that very few young people consume old films. Third, studios very rarely rerelease old films because they are unlikely to ever get widespread distri­ bution in cinemas, presumably, in part, because audiences don’t patronize them. Be this a chicken or egg problem, the undercurrent is that old film and television looks old and holds little appeal for the young people who buy most movie tickets. If a studio wants to broaden the reach of material, a media item needs to look contemporary and to compete – for dollars and attention – alongside new cinema releases. Actor Robin Ellis – who starred as the titular character in the British period-drama Poldark (1975– 1977) and who had a recurring role as Reverend Halse in the series remake (2015–) – offers insight into this issue: “Television production techniques have changed enormously since I played Poldark – the old drama can look a bit clunky now – and any remake has to update itself for a modern audi­ ence.”6 Gentrifying a story (Chapter 1) so that it looks new and shiny – even if, ultimately, it’s the same old story – to compete in the modern entertain­ ment market, is a key driver in remaking. In Chapter 1 I discussed that once sound and color became more com­ mon, old properties were revisited to take advantage of new technology. Audience expectations of color are, for example, part of the reason why Gus Van Sant departed from Alfred Hitchcock’s black and white Psycho (1960) and made his 1998 version in color. While aesthetics can refer to how a film looks – i.e., whether it is shot on film or digital and the quality of CGI – in this section I focus on two other modernizing devices: editing and music. Modern editing It’s not as though people don’t watch old films or old television: nostalgia networks like TCM, Pop and Nick at Nite primarily exist to provide audi­ ences a heavy dose of old films and old television. That said, such networks

232 The fashionable remake target a very specific demographic – usually the over-50s whose patronage of new material is low7 – and who, while inclined to enjoy the network’s old offerings in their homes on television, would be unlikely to pay to see such content at a multiplex. With Hollywood output predominantly targeting young people, material is consciously made to appeal to their tastes. In Chapter 4, I identified that one of the hallmarks of Americanization of foreign content is the (re)production of films that move faster. Oftentimes this pertains to plot and the perception that American audiences are bored by the slow pacing of foreign content: film critic Josh Cabrita, for example, argues that “remakes appeal to popular laziness and an unwillingness to read subtitles, submerge into foreign cultures, or watch older films with slower editing.”8 This often means, as discussed in Chapter 4, that the plot of an American remake has to get moving much quicker than its interna­ tional – or even just older American – precursor. Further, and in contrast with the simplistic assertions of Americans wanting dumbed-down content, stateside audiences in fact – particularly so those of commercial film and television – have become used to films with more characters and simultane­ ous storylines: older films can thus seem comparatively one-dimensional to today’s young audiences. A central way to speed up plot is through editing. Contemporary films look the way they do – and stories unfold the way they do – for many reasons, most notably editing. Editing is much easier to do in the era of digital media production, thus sharply distancing the process from the days when making edits involved film stock and scissors. Ease of editing means not only that the pace of the finished product can be hastened, but simultaneous stories are much easier to present. Filmmaker Matt Riddlehoover referenced pace in his discussion of Van Sant’s 1998 Psycho: “I can understand wanting to introduce the story to a new generation, but let’s face it, the masses don’t have patience for sto­ ries like Psycho [1960] anymore.”9 While audience lack of patience likely, in part, explains the lack of success that Van Sant’s remake had at the box office, it nonetheless provides rationale for some of the modifications that the director made in his otherwise shot-for-shot reproduction. Film theo­ rist Mario Falsetto, for example, notes that among Van Sant’s tweaks was a change to pacing: Once the film was shot, however, it was decided that the original editing rhythms and imagery would not quite work for modern audiences. So the editing was accelerated to account for more contemporary cinema tastes.10 Film theorist Thomas Leitch identifies dozens of very small changes that transpired between the 1960 and 1998 Psychos, observing that in the remake: “In general, every scene is played faster, so that the film is shortened from 109 to 103 minutes.”11 The change of pace between the first film and the

The fashionable remake

233

remake is not an outlier; reviewers in fact, often draw attention to a remake being faster-paced than its predecessor: • The comedy Nine Months (1995) as a “fast-paced remake of the 1993 French farce Neuf Mois [Nine Months].”12 • The political-thriller The Manchurian Candidate (2004) as a “fast-paced remake” of the 1962 film.13 • The heist film The Italian Job (2003) as a “fast-paced remake of a 1969 hit.”14 • The adventure film King Kong (2005) as “a slickly made, fast-paced remake” of the 1933 and 1976 films.15 • 3:10 to Yuma (2007) – the remake of the 1957 Western – as a “fast-paced remake that reinvigorates the Western genre.” • The sci-fi series Bionic Woman (2007) as a “fast-paced remake of the daggy 1970s series” [1976–1978].16 • The sci-fi film Death Race (2008) as “a fast-paced remake of the 1975 cult classic.”17 • The British sci-fi series The Prisoner (2009) as an “intelligent and fastpaced remake” of the 1967–1968 series.18 • The drama Footloose (2011) as a “fast-paced” remake of the 1984 film.19 • The musical Sparkle (2012) – the remake of the 1976 film – as “more fast-paced, doing away with the long montages that weighed down the ’70s film.”20 In Rob Owen’s Pittsburgh Post-Gazette discussion of the period-drama mini­ series Roots (2016) – a remake of the 1977 series – he similarly spotlights that speeding up the narrative was key in the reproduction: The original, though daring for its time, feels dated today with a cast that’s largely unknown – and thus, less of a draw – to today’s youth . . . the story needs to be retold using the modern language of filmmaking with its faster pace and better effects work.21 Whether or not faster-paced is always a good thing is debatable – discussing 2000s remakes of 1970s horror, for example, Sean Macaulay in The Times argues that “slicker camera-work [and] faster editing” has come “at the expense of the cheeky subversive flourishes”22 – but it is nonetheless some­ thing that modern audiences have grown to expect. Partly this is attribut­ able to editing practices over the past two decades and partly it relates to the assumed faster pace of life and the speed of information transfer. By remaking old or foreign content with faster editing, a studio can tap into the expectations of an audience and present a film that feels modern and is thus hopefully more appealing. (It should be noted that faster-paced is not necessarily antonymous with the trend toward longer runtimes that were observed in Chapter 5; films can, of course, be both longer and faster.)

234 The fashionable remake Modern music From The Wizard of Oz (1939) (the remake of the 1925 film), to City of Angels (1988) (the remake of the German film Der Himmel über Berlin [Wings of Desire] [1987]), to A Star is Born (2018) (the remake of the 1937, 1954 and 1976 films), there have been many remakes that have become renowned for their successful soundtracks. In each of these examples, many of the songs – and certainly the hits tracks – were written specifically for the film. While in each example they were songs that spoke to the era and to the musical tastes of their audience, such music is also a component of modernization. In the silent era, if music was to be included in a film, it was played live in the theater. In the era of the talkies, the scoring of films began. While such scoring of course still occurs, from the late 1960s it became increasingly common for popular music to be inserted into a film: the soundtrack for the drama The Graduate (1967), for example, is one of the earliest examples whereby most of the songs – many by Simon and Garfunkle – were licensed for use in the film (as opposed to being written for it). Just as its modern soundtrack made The Graduate feel like a distinctly modern film – and the film is often considered as one of the best cinema encapsulations of the 1960s zeitgeist – the use of contemporary music can freshen a remake and make it feel new to a modern audience. This is evident in a range of examples. Baz Luhrman’s Romeo + Juliet (1996) has repeatedly been described by commentators as a film made for the “MTV generation.”23 Such a descrip­ tion refers to the assumed youth audience and their high appreciation for the MTV network’s music videos but also references audience appetites for the aesthetics and fast edits so common in music videos. The soundtrack for Romeo + Juliet boasted new tracks by contemporary artists like Radiohead, Garbage and Des’ree; as John Lyons’s wrote in his Winnipeg Free Press review, “Like the chaotic, visually stunning retelling of Shakespeare’s tragic love story, the film’s soundtrack is young, busy and very au courant.”24 In 2018, Noel Murray wrote for Vulture a list of greatest movie soundtracks, which included the soundtracks of several remakes.25 Among them was the aforementioned Romeo + Juliet soundtrack, as well as A Star is Born (2018), the latter of which included new tracks written for the film as well as licensed songs by The Beastie Boys and Tyler the Creator. Murray also named the soundtrack for the biopic Marie Antoinette (2006) – Sofia Coppola’s reim­ agining of a story first filmed in France as Le collier de la reine (1929). The soundtrack featured contemporary techno music from Richard D. James and Aphex Twin, helping to deliver a contemporary feel to a story set in the eighteenth century. While the success of the 2018 A Star is Born might have been anticipated given the popularity of its stars, the musical genre itself is a risky pursuit and is no guarantee of box office success: screen musicals, in fact, have struggled to make money for half a century. Certainly for several modern era musical remakes – think Nine (2009), the remake of the Italian film 8½

The fashionable remake

235

(1963) or the made-for-television Dirty Dancing (2017), the remake of the 1987 film – such films were neither critical nor box office or ratings suc­ cesses, thus serving as a reminder that genres go in and out of fashion and that the heyday of the movie musical has largely passed. In the following section I examine the role of genre trends, identifying its role in helping to drive reproduction.

Genre trends In Chapter 5 I discussed the genre-swap as a creative means to breathe new life into a remake. One of the most common examples of this is remaking a film from another genre as a musical. While in Bollywood such productions are incredibly common with even the most unexpected narratives being remade with song and dance – the horror film The Exorcist (1973) for exam­ ple, was remade as the musical Jadu Tona (1977), and the drama One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975), was remade with song and dance as Thalavat­ tam (1986) – there are also many US examples of this. Film theorist Jerome Delamater identifies three types of musical remakes: i) a second version of a musical original, for example the 1951 Show Boat musical remade as the 1962 musical State Fair; ii) a remake that takes a non-musical entity and introduces song and dance and iii) a remake that uses “the essential narrative material of an earlier musical but give[s] it a new gloss” for example The Wizard of Oz (1939) being remade as The Wiz (1978).26 In this section I am most interested in ii) – films that are remade with musical content not present in the predecessor. (It’s worth nothing that sometimes a Broadway production serves to inspire the musical remake. The aforementioned Nine, for example, had played as a Broadway musical in the 1980s, thus between the productions of the 1963 8½ and the 2009 film musical.) Examples of such remakes transpire widely. The 1954, 1976 and 2018 versions of A Star is Born were musicals, but the story didn’t begin this way: the 1937 film was a melodrama that focused on the rise of an actress; the next three films were remade as musicals about the careers of singers. A range of other films underwent a genre-swap during their reproduction to incorporate song and sometimes also dance elements, for example: • The drama Oliver Twist – first filmed in 1912 – remade as the musical Oliver! (1968). • The romance Wuthering Heights – first filmed in 1920 – remade as a made-for-television musical in 2003. • The silent romance Old Heidelberg (1915) remade as the musical The Student Prince (1954). • The silent comedy-drama Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm (1917) remade as a musical in 1938. • The silent comedy-drama The Poor Little Rich Girl (1917) remade as a musical in 1936.

236 The fashionable remake • The silent comedy-romance Ruggles of Red Gap (1918) remade as the musical Fancy Pants (1950). • The silent comedy Daddy Long Legs (1919) remade as the musical Curly Top (1935). • The silent comedy Damsel in Distress (1919) remade as a musical in 1937. • The silent drama The Belle of New York (1919) remade as a musical in 1952. • The silent drama If I Were King (1920) remade as the musical The Vaga­ bond King (1956). • The silent adventure-comedy A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court (1921) remade as a musical in 1949. • The romcom The Charm School (1921) remade as the musical Sweetie (1929). • The silent comedy The Hottentot (1922) remade as the musical Going Places (1938). • The silent drama Captain January (1924) remade as a musical in 1936. • The silent comedy The Fighting Coward (1924) remade as the musical Mississippi (1935). • The silent romcom The Great White Way (1924) remade as the musical Cain and Mabel (1936). • The silent comedy Her Sister from Paris (1925) remade as the musical Moulin Rouge (1934). • The silent comedy Shore Leave (1925) remade as the musical Follow the Fleet (1936). • The silent screwball comedy The Awful Truth (1925) remade as the musical Let’s Do It Again (1953). • The silent drama The Merry Widow (1925) remade as a musical in 1952. • The silent comedy drama Irene (1926) remade as a musical in 1940. • The silent war-comedy What Price Glory (1926) remade as a musical in 1952. • The silent comedy The Cradle Snatchers (1927) remade as the musicals Why Leave Home? (1929) and Let’s Face It (1943). • The silent romance The Dove (1927) remade as the musical Girl of Rio (1932). • The silent war-drama The Lady in Ermine (1927) remade as the musical That Lady in Ermine (1948). • The period-drama Glorious Betsy (1928) remade as the musical Hearts Divided (1936). • The silent comedy Harold Teen (1928) remade as a musical in 1934. • The silent drama Sadie Thompson (1928) remade as the musical Miss Sadie Thompson (1953). • The silent drama Rose-Marie (1928) remade as a musical in 1936. • The silent romance The Barker (1928) remade as the musical Diamond Horseshoe (1945). • The silent comedy The Fleet’s In (1928) remade as a musical in 1942.

The fashionable remake

237

• The silent crime-drama Sweeney Todd (1928) remade as a musical in 1982. • The silent comedy The Butter and Egg Man (1928) remade as the musi­ cal Three Sailors and a Girl (1943). • The silent comedy Vamping Venus (1928) remade as the musical Roman Scandals (1933). • The German horror film Geheimnis des blauen Zimmers (1932) remade as the musical Murder in the Blue Room (1944). • The French comedy La couturière de Lunéville (The Dressmaker of Lunev­ ille) (1932) remade as the musical Dressed to Thrill (1935). • The comedy The Greeks Had a Word for Them (1932) remade as the musi­ cal Moon Over Miami (1941). • The romcom One Sunday Afternoon (1933) remade as a musical in 1948. • The German comedy Frühjahrsparade (1934) remade as the musical Spring Parade (1940). • The screwball comedy It Happened One Night (1934) remade as the musicals Eve Knew Her Apples (1945) and as You Can’t Run Away From It (1956). • The French fantasy-drama Liliom (1934) remade as the musical Carousel (1956). • The romcom The Richest Girl in the World (1934) remade as the musical The French Line (1953). • The romcom Accent on Youth (1935) remade as the musical Mr. Music (1950). • The comedy-drama Ah, Wilderness! (1935) remade as the musical Sum­ mer Holiday (1948). • The Western Annie Oakley (1935) remade as the musical Annie Get Your Gun (1950). • The comedy-drama Princess O’Hara (1935) remade as the musical It Ain’t Hay (1943). • The comedy The Milky Way (1936) remade as the musical The Kid from Brooklyn (1946). • The crime-drama Kid Galahad (1937) remade as a musical in 1962. • The romcom Love is News (1937) remade as the musical Sweet Rosie O’Grady (1943). • The adventure-drama Lost Horizon (1937) remade as a musical in 1973. • The French crime-drama Pépé le Moko (1937) remade as the musical Casbah (1943). • The drama Brother Rat (1938) remade as the musical About Face (1952). • The romance Kentucky (1938) remade as a musical Down Argentine Way (1940). • The comedy-drama Pygmalion (1935) remade as the musical My Fair Lady (1964). • The comedy Room Service (1938) remade as the musical Step Lively (1944).

238 The fashionable remake • The Austrian romcom Kleine Mutti (Little Mother) (1935) remade as the musical Bundle of Joy (1956). • The romance Daughters Courageous (1939) remade as the musical Always in My Heart (1942). • The romance Goodbye, Mr. Chips (1939) remade as a musical in 1969. • The romance Ninotchka (1939) remade as the musical Silk Stockings (1957). • The comedy-drama The Women (1939) remade as the musical The Oppo­ site Sex (1956). • The drama He Married His Wife (1940) remade as the musical Meet Me After the Show (1951). • The romcom The Philadelphia Story (1940) remade as the musical High Society (1956). • The comedy-drama The Shop Around the Corner (1940) remade as the musical In the Good Old Summertime (1949). • The romcom Too Many Husbands (1940) remade as the musical Three for the Show (1955). • The Argentinian romcom Los martes, orquídeas (On Tuesdays: Orchids) (1941) remade in the US as the musical You Were Never Lovelier (1942). • The screwball comedy Ball of Fire (1941) remade as the musical A Song is Born (1948). • The romcom Tom, Dick, and Harry (1941) remade as the musical The Girl Most Likely (1958). • The comedy My Sister Eileen (1942) remade as a musical in 1955. • The romcom The Male Animal (1942) remade as the musical She’s Work­ ing Her Way Through College (1952). • The drama Anna and the King (1946) remade as the musical The King and I (1956). • The romcom Gigi (1949) remade as a musical in 1958. • The fantasy romcom Here Comes Mr. Jordan (1941) remade as the musi­ cals Down to Earth (1947) and Xanadu (1980). • The drama All About Eve (1950) remade as the musical Applause (1973). • The fantasy-drama Orphée (1950) remade as the musical Parking (1985). • The drama Three Coins in the Fountain (1954) remade as the musical The Pleasure Seekers (1964). • The drama I am a Camera (1955) remade as the musical Cabaret (1972). • The Swedish romcom Sommarnattens leende (Smiles of a Summer Night) (1955) remade as the musical A Little Night Music (1977). • The drama Anastasia (1956) remade as an animated-musical in 1997. • The Italian drama Le notti di Cabiria (The Nights of Cabiria) (1957) remade as the musical Sweet Charity (1969). • The comedy-drama Auntie Mame (1958) remade as the musical Mame (1974). • The romcom The Matchmaker (1958) remade as the musical Hello, Dolly! (1969).

The fashionable remake

239

• The supernatural Little Shop of Horrors (1960) remade as a musical in 1986.27 The most obvious explanations for such remakes lie both in a desire to freshen old material and, notably, to take advantage of new technology: with the advent of talkie technology in 1927, it suddenly became possible to incorporate not only sound but music, thus allowing the kinds of produc­ tions that had long been performed on stage to appear on screen. Reimagining content as a musical is a way to harness the broader cul­ tural interests of filmgoers. As noted, genres go and in and out of fashion: musicals are a very good example of this. Musicals are a form of popu­ lar, light-hearted escapism that have had heightened appeal during down­ cast times like the Great Depression and World War II. The height of the genre’s popularity, however, came in the 1950s. While light-hearted, happy and hopeful escapism was obviously desirable amid Cold War-era anxie­ ties, musicals also provided answers to two other 1950s happenings: it was a means to compete with the new challenges posed by television and was a way to harness the values of the era whilst recalling the glory days of early cinema (Chapter 3). Musical theater scholar Stacy Ellen Wolf discusses the role of politics in such productions, observing that while musical remakes sometimes subvert dominant cultural morals, mostly they are highly con­ servative productions: The musical appears to reflect the dominant values of the culture: con­ servative, sexist, and homophobic. Musicals are frequently structured around a heterosexual couple. . . . The eventual heterosexual union required by the musical also unifies the community, as woman submits to man, nature to culture, passion to reason, body to mind.28 Reproducing a film as a musical harnesses genre trends and, during certain periods like the 1950s, capitalizes on the dominant conservative values of the day whilst breathing new life into an old story. The decline in popularity of other film genres in the 1950s also helps to explain the many musical remakes produced during this time. In their book on remakes, for example, Robert Nowlan and Gwendolyn Wright Nowlan discuss the popularity of the musical being, in part, attributable to the demise of the screwball comedy: “By 1953, the age of the screwball com­ edy had passed.”29 With such material considered passé, reworking a screw­ ball comedy like The Awful Truth as the musical Let’s Do It Again made sense: it gave new life to the kinds of material that audiences were no longer clam­ bering to see, whilst allowing the studio (in this case, Columbia Pictures), to get further return on investment on a property they already owned by tapping into the trends of what audiences were actually paying to see. The popularity of certain kinds of music also drives musical remake pro­ duction. Jessica Kiang, Oli Lyttelton and Rodrigo Perez in IndieWire, for

240 The fashionable remake example, discuss director Howard Hawks remaking his screwball comedy Ball of Fire as the musical Song is Born and note that the director’s autoremake was “Designed as a way to capitalize on the growing popularity of jazz, and feature[d] a plethora of huge names from the big-band era, often playing themselves.”30 Jazz was similarly an important component of West Side Story (1961), the modern, musical reimagining of Romeo & Juliet, with the new story set in contemporary New York City with a jazz-inspired soundtrack. More recent examples include The Wiz – the aforementioned remake of The Wizard of Oz – which boasted a soundtrack inspired by pop, disco, R&B and soul and thus exploited the musical tastes of the late 1970s. Xanadu similarly added disco and pop music to the Here Comes Mr. Jordan storyline to appeal to a 1980s audience. Further, the 2001 Carmen: A Hip Hopera took the 1875 opera – filmed many times since 191331 – and reimagined the material with a hip-hop soundtrack. The most recent incarnation of A Star is Born similarly used country and pop music to retell the old story, in contrast, for example, to the rock ‘n’ roll soundtrack used to update the 1976 film, which had been an attempt to distinguish it from the Broadway-style soundtrack of its 1954 predecessor. Such examples are illustrations of remakes utilizing contempo­ rary music to deliver new appeals and a distinct feel of freshness. The musical, of course, isn’t the only genre to harness trends: other remakes also look to the broader interests of a culture to determine what audiences might be inclined to pay to see. Film writer Robert Birchard, for example, discusses director Cecil B. DeMille cashing-in on the 1930s trend toward big budget Westerns, notably so by remaking one of his own: In the wake of a cycle of big-budget Westerns like In Old Arizona (Fox, 1929), Billy the Kid (M-G-M, 1930), The Big Trail (Fox, 1930), and Cima­ rron (RKO, 1931), it must have seemed a good idea for Cecil B. DeMille to undertake a sound version of The Squaw Man.32 Resultantly, DeMille directed his third version of The Squaw Man in 1931, having previously filmed it in 1914 and 1918. DeMille, ever the savvy busi­ nessman,33 similarly exploited the aforementioned conservativism of the 1950s and, more specifically, the period’s interest in biblical epics. As Birchard flags, The Ten Commandments (1956) – DeMille’s autoremake of his 1923 film – “complemented the cycle of Biblical spectacles that Hollywood found profitable in the 1950s.”34 While dozens of biblical epics were made during the 1950s, as specifically relevant to this section among them were a range of remakes including Samson and Delilah (1949), based on a story first filmed in 1902; David and Bathsheba (1951), first filmed in 1909; Quo Vadis (1951), first filmed in 1901; Salome (1953), first filmed in 1922 and Solomon and Sheba (1959), the remake of The Queen of Sheba (1921). Film theorist Peter Lev also contends that the biblical epic Ben-Hur (1959) – the remake of the 1907 and 1925 films – was another example of a film that aimed to cash in on the success of biblical epics as well as attempted to “reprise the enormous success of The Ten Commandments.”35

The fashionable remake

241

Several studies on DeMille note that his biblical epics addressed – if not overtly capitalized on – a conservative America. In commentary on the 1956 The Ten Commandments remake, for example, cultural theorist David Sanjek observes: DeMille remade the film, convinced that, in the wake of the horrors of World War II, the public could be bolstered by a dose of old-time morality and would flock to the theaters to receive it. ‘The word needs a reminder,’ he wrote, ‘of the law of God’; he added, ‘the world’s awful experience of totalitarianism, fascist and communist, had made many thoughtful people realize that the law of God is the essential bedrock of human freedom.’36 Film historian Sumiko Higashi explores similar ideas: When DeMille announced plans to remake his silent classic in 1952, he thus affirmed that “the new adaptation will be ‘in line with the spiritual reawakening of all nations of the free world in these troubled times.’ ” The ‘troubled times’ referred, of course, to the Cold War.37 Conservativism is a key explanation for the 1950s biblical remakes trend: both adherence to it as noted but also, noteworthily, sneaky ways to subvert it. At various junctures in this book I have referred to the Hays Code, the restrictive production code that dictated the contents of screen media from the mid-1930s until the late 1960s. Just as screwball comedies channeled themes of sex and sexuality into battle-of-the-sexes banter and madcap situ­ ations in adherence with the Code, biblical epics functioned similarly. Cul­ tural theorist Diane Apostolos-Cappadona, for example, posits that during this restrictive period, “the most acceptable cinematic path for movies to incorporate sex and violence was the biblical epic.”38 These films granted audiences access to tantalizing topics that they weren’t able to easily see elsewhere, all under the guise of wholesome, conservative Christian con­ tent. Such an interpretation of this trend is not new; even in the 1950s, DeMille was accused of cynically capitalizing on conservatism: I’m sometimes accused of gingering up the Bible with lavish infusions of sex and violence, but I wish that my accusers would read their Bibles more closely, for in those pages are more sex and violence than I could ever portray on screen.39 DeMille’s use of sex and violence to both “ginger up” the Bible but also to update previously filmed content relates to ideas discussed in Chapter 5 about darker and grittier remakes, as well as my work elsewhere on sex as a modernizing device in remaking.40 While the preoccupations of a given culture help to explain trends in genre, they also hint to the influence politics has on the zeitgeist, on

242 The fashionable remake audiences and also on studio production decisions. Such issues are explored in the next section.

Addressing modern politics Scholarly work on remaking often observes how such films provide a useful means to compare how society has changed in the years between the pro­ ductions: as scholar Joseph Champoux writes in his work on films as edu­ cative tools, “Films spaced many years apart offer observations on cultural mores, roles and relationships in the same culture at two different times.”41 While such comparisons give insight into what has changed socially and politically in the intervening years, remakes also provide insight into how the happenings in the zeitgeist at the time of the new production are har­ nessed to make old material relevant – if not trendy – again. The focus of this book is understanding the why of remake production. This chapter specifically focuses on remakes that are produced to take advantage of fashion. Such remakes can speak to the contemporary con­ cerns of an audience and also capitalize on political events and the cultural mood by remaking material as timely and cutting-edge. Remakes harness­ ing the post-9/11 zeitgeist is such an example. Communications theorist Carlen Lavigne discusses such ideas in her work on the CBS television series Beauty and the Beast (2012–2016), a remake of the CW series of the same name that aired between 1987 and 1990. Lavigne observes that “every era creates the fairy tales it needs: while the CBS series was a reflection of American political realities of the 1980s, the CW has created a text sympto­ matic of post-911 culture.”42 Perhaps more so than any other socio-political events, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 enormously impacted American popu­ lar culture. In this section, I examine remakes that specifically tapped into the post-9/11 cultural sentiment as a means to address and reflect on the era, to modernize premade content and to exploit a cultural climate for both entertainment and profit. Remaking 9/11 Earlier I discussed that part of DeMille’s rationale for remaking his own The Ten Commandments in 1956 was to speak to, and also capitalize on, an America that was both recovering from World War II and also existing in the shadow of the Cold War. The events of 9/11 were similarly harnessed. In Lavigne’s discussion of the two Beauty and the Beast series, she identifies how the events of 9/11 sharply distinguished the CW remake from its CBS predecessor: The CBS Beauty and the Beast was primarily a class-based discourse and a reaction to the rise of neoliberalism in the years of Reagan conserva­ tism; it was strongly infected by second-wave feminism and civil rights concerns. The CW remake has been rebooted as a crime procedural;

The fashionable remake

243

it is postfeminist and postracial, and it trades class injustice for military conspiracy, surveillance, and the lingering shadow of a traumatic past.43 9/11 ushered in heightened interest in themes (and fears) related to the military, as well as surveillance, paranoia, terrorism and patriotism. Such themes and fears of course, weren’t totally new to American audiences and in fact had previously featured prominently in films made during the Cold War era.44 In the aftermath of 9/11 therefore, Cold War era media that had once spoken to the anxieties of its audience had relevance to 2000s era viewers, in turn ushering in a series of remakes: • The sci-fi The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) remade in 2008. • The sci-fi The War of the Worlds (1953) remade in 2005. • The sci-fi Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) remade as The Invasion in 2007. • The political-drama The Quiet American (1958) remade in 2002. • The political-thriller The Manchurian Candidate (1962) remade in 2004. • The sci-fi The Andromeda Strain (1971) remade as a mini-series in 2008. • The sci-fi The Omega Man (1971) remade as I am Legend in 2007. • The thriller mini-series Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (1979) remade in 2011. • The action-drama Red Dawn (1984) remade in 2012. Cold War-era remakes aside, 9/11 also influenced a range of other adapta­ tions and remake projects, notably with discernible themes of surveillance, paranoia, terrorism and patriotism. In media scholars Claire Perkins and Constantine Verevis’s discussion of the drama series Homeland (2011–) for example – the US remake of the Israeli series Hatufim (Prisoners of War) (2009–2012) – the authors contrast the different politics apparent in each series: [T]he American version recasts the Israeli series’ concern with the legitimacy and aftermath of prisoner exchanges into a diegesis centring on the collective trauma of 9/11, and a dramatic narrative that seeks to understand it.45 While Homeland – with its very specific plot centered on the threat of Islamic terrorism – is an obvious post-9/11-themed remake, scholars, in fact, point to 9/11 undertones in a diverse range of projects transpiring in the first decade of the 2000s. Discussing the crime-drama The Taking of Pelham 123 (2009) – the remake of the 1974 film that was remade as a television movie in 1998 – Brian D. Johnson in Maclean’s discusses the changed socio-political landscape that informed the 2009 film: Aside from gratuitous spectacle, there’s a rationale for cranking up the adrenalin: New York has changed. In the original movie, the sleepy dis­ patch team takes forever to wake up to the implications that a train has

244 The fashionable remake been hijacked. The remake is set in paranoid, post-9/11 New York. So the entire police force springs into action, as viral rumors of terrorism make the stock market plunge.46 Producer Bill Gerber similarly attributes the post-9/11 socio-political cli­ mate to him remaking the action-comedy television series Dukes of Haz­ zard (1979–1985) as the 2005 film: “After 9/11,” Gerber says, “I wanted to come up with a real red-blooded Americana movie. And I thought, a movie about the Dukes of Hazzard is exactly what I’m talking about.”47 The hypermasculine Americana referenced by Gerber is also alluded to in cultural theorist Mark Wildermuth’s criticism of the remade The Manchurian Candi­ date, where he observes: “Although the misogynistic trope’s vigor is evident in the first film, its renewal and intensity are equally clear in the second – a product of a new post-9/11 security regime.”48 Elsewhere I discuss remakes – notably those made in the aftermath of 9/11 – that were less progressive, less feminist and distinctly more misogynist than their predecessor:49 argu­ ably hyper-masculine films like the Dukes of Hazzard and the 2004 Manchurian Candidate are such examples, with 9/11 serving as both a rationale for the acceptance – if not reembrace – of such themes and also as an audience hook. Earlier in this chapter I discussed genre trends: some theorists have argued that 9/11 not only ushered in a renewed interest in military para­ noia narratives but also a resurgence of horror stories. A range of scholarly work on horror pinpoints the genre’s ability to channel our collective fears into an escapist entertainment product. Drawing on the work of film theo­ rist Robin Wood, for example, Christian Knöppler posits that the purpose of the horror genre “boils down to enacting a return of anything that is repressed in society, embodied in the figure of the monster.”50 9/11 pre­ sented both a new or at least reinvigorated set of fears, and the horror genre provided a new-old outlet for them. Cultural theorist Thomas Riegler dis­ cusses the post-9/11 boom in horror remakes, observing that such films spoke to anxieties in the culture that had been somewhat dormant since the 1970s;51 the attacks delivered a new kind of fear on a scale that many young Americans hadn’t previously experienced: As during the 1970s, in post 9/11 horror, evil lurks in remote places at home, mostly in red state territory and in the shape of ignorant, reac­ tionary or retarded backwoodsmen, whose “appetite” for slaying young­ sters seems insatiable. This reflects the tensions and divisions within American society – whether it is about the difference between city and countryside or diverging opinions on morals, religion, and politics. Thus, like in the classics, the main characters and themselves suddenly beset by savage strangers and deadly threats.52 In the years following 9/11, a large number of 1970s era horror films were remade, for example: Piranha (1978/2010), Carrie (1976/2002/2013), Suspiria (1977/2018), Dawn of the Dead (1978/2004), The Hills Have Eyes (1977/2006),

The fashionable remake

245

The Amityville Horror (1979/2005), The Last House on the Left (1972/2009), The Wicker Man (1973/2006), The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974/2003), The Crazies (1973/2010), When a Stranger Calls (1979/2006), Black Christmas (1974/2006), Halloween (1978/2007), The Omen (1976/2006), It’s Alive (1974/2009), Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark (1973/2010), I Spit On Your Grave (1978/2010), Sisters (1972/2006), And Soon the Darkness (1970/2010), The Initiation of Sarah (1978/2006), Willard (1971/2003), Toolbox Murders (1978/2004) and Salem’s Lot (1979/2004).53 At a cursory level, this slew of remakes can be explained, simply, by studios needing to find material to channel new fears into: remak­ ing old content is simply the cheaper option (Chapter 2) and enables trends to be quickly capitalized on and put before audiences. Remaking 1970s hor­ ror films also assists in audience expansion: horror disproportionately appeals to young people and the youth of the 2000s would likely not have seen the 1970s originary films thus positioning the remakes as new material. Politics, however, was also a driver of these remakes. Breck Eisner, who directed the 2010 horror film The Crazies – the remake of the 1973 movie – identified that the zeitgeist was a key motivation: This movie for me was a response to the George Bush presidency, post­ 9/11, Iraq War. I think the populace lost faith in the government to fight just wars, to fight wars that are a benefit to the broader world. The movie is definitely influenced by the post-9/11 world.54 Eisner argues that the influence of contemporary politics on his film was akin to its influence it had on the director of the 1973 film, George Romero: “Like Romero was influenced by Vietnam, we were influenced by today’s wars.”55 While 9/11 can be interpreted as one explanation for the many 2000s-era horror remakes, something similar transpired during the same period with sci-fi remakes. In many of the remakes of Cold War films discussed earlier – The Invasion, The Day the Earth Stood Still, I am Legend and The Andromeda Strain, for example – zeitgeist concerns about immigration and terrorism were channeled into narratives centered on alien invasion, similar to the ways that the originary stories had done decades prior with their era’s sociopolitical challenges. Reigler, for example, spotlights that, just as occurred in the Cold War era, the post-9/11 zeitgeist saw a renewed focus on alien inva­ sion scenarios whereby the real-life concerns about outsiders were chan­ neled into sci-fi narratives.56 This idea is well-illustrated in several examples. The 1953 sci-fi The War of the Worlds – like many films from both this genre and this period – focused on threats to citizens in the post-World War II/ Cold War environments. In the wake of 9/11, Americans were once again fearing invasion and outsiders, and thus the story was deemed ideal for revisiting. Director Steven Spielberg remade the film in 2005 and acknowl­ edged the link between the remake and the political environment: I think 9/11 reinformed everything I’m putting into War of the Worlds. Just how we come together, how this nation unites in every known way

246 The fashionable remake to survive a foreign invader and a frontal assault. We now know what it feels like to be terrorized.57 Similar themes of terror and take-over are identifiable in other sci-fi remakes. In her discussion of the 1956 Invasion of the Body Snatchers, for example, cul­ tural theorist Kathleen Loock notes that the film provides “commentary on McCarthyism, the alienating effects of capitalism, conformism, postwar radiation anxiety, the return of ‘brainwashed’ soldiers from the Korean War.”58 The 2007 remake, The Invasion, (re)harnessed some of these themes but also tweaked the material to make it relevant and new-seeming for the post-9/11 zeitgeist; something philosopher Juneko Robinson discusses: From the outset, the references in The Invasion to the post-September 11 American landscape are unmistakable, this is so to such an extent that some audience members have complained of the liberal political subtext of the film.59 While horror and sci-fi remakes are the most commonly discussed examples of post-9/11 genre trends, another worth spotlighting is superhero films which, invariably, are adaptations of not only comic books and graphic nov­ els but also previously filmed content. A range of such remakes produced in the aftermath of 9/11 – think Spider-Man (2002), Hulk (2003), SpiderMan 2 (2004), Fantastic Four (2005), Superman Returns (2006), Spider-Man 3 (2007), The Incredible Hulk (2008) – illustrate this well. Several writers have speculated on the connection between the 9/11 aftermath and the new life breathed into the superhero genre. In Todd VanDerWerff’s Vox article, for example, he identifies a direct connection between the terrorist attacks and a reembrace of superheroes: These films are pop culture’s most sustained response to tragedy. In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, America turned to superpowered heroes to rewrite that day so that it ended as one where nobody had to die. Superhero movies, in some ways, aim to turn that day into some­ thing out of myth, like the ancients might have recast a real tragedy as an epic tale of heroism. This is one of the ways we process grief – in our tales.60 Riegler similarly observes the resurgence of superhero narratives in the aftermath of 9/11,61 whereby audiences are, presumably, seeking not only escapism but also the secular Jesus-type figure that superheroes offer.62 Joe Queenan in The Guardian also explores these ideas, contending that such films present a contemporary alternative to the Western, providing similar pleasures to the audience: [S]uperhero movies are made for a society that has basically given up. The police can’t protect us, the government can’t protect us, there

The fashionable remake

247

are no more charismatic loners to protect us and the Euro is defunct. Clint Eastwood has left the building. So let’s turn things over to the vigilantes.63 Studios seek to capitalize on contemporary politics to update old properties and to produce material that is comparatively less risky and that attracts an audience seeking fresh-seeming commentary on their world. An additional explanation for such remakes is the more active collusion on the part of studios and governments, something that philosopher Slavoj Žižek suggests occurred in the aftermath of 9/11: [A]t the beginning of November 2001, there was a series of meetings between White House advisers and senior Hollywood executives with the aim of co-ordinating the war effort and establishing how Hollywood could help in the ‘war against terrorism’ by getting the right ideological message across not only to Americans, but also to the Hollywood public around the world – the ultimate proof that Hollywood does in fact func­ tion as an ‘ideological state apparatus.’64 While 9/11 is one of the most significant socio-political events to happen to the US and thus it’s no surprise that its presence is felt throughout pop culture, it’s also important to recognize that one of the key reasons that people watch television and go to the cinema is for escapism. With this in mind, remakes aren’t always about harnessing politics – although it’s inevitable that they may be construed this way – rather, they can simply be an offering of distracting fare. While this can be an interpretation of the superhero, sci-fi and even horror films mentioned thus far, it’s also an explanation for why in some remakes the political content of an earlier film is downplayed or eliminated entirely. Sometimes the politics of a pre­ decessor are side-lined in pursuit of a production that’s consciously the­ matically lighter. Such examples are particularly relevant to the production of nostalgic remakes, which often trade on audience desires for the simple pleasures of the past, predicated on escaping the complexities of modern life (Chapter 3). In media theorist Cristina Lucia Stasia’s criticism of the 2011 reboot of Charlie’s Angels (1976–1981), for example, she observes that: “While the original series referenced the political climate in the United States, the reboot existed in a political and cultural vacuum.”65 The idea of a remake downplaying or side-lining politics – notably so feminist politics – has been identified in many criticisms of so-called post-feminist remakes. When The Stepford Wives (1975) was released, for example, it was a sci-fi thriller that wryly commented on second-wave feminism and harnessed the ensuing cul­ tural fears about women’s rise in status. When the film was remade in 2004, the political commentary was absent and the new film was presented as a camp satire, in line with some of the expectations of postmodern, “retro” filmmaking.66 In such examples, the remake eschews politics in favor of

248 The fashionable remake lighter fare. (The eschewing or downplaying of politics is also examined in Chapter 3.) Outside of politics, other topical social and cultural issues provide ration­ ale to revisit old material. In the following section, remaking to incorporate new issues beyond politics is explored.

Addressing modern concerns Johnson describes remakes as a kind of gentrification: “you jack up an old property and renovate it with a contemporary setting, bankable stars, stateof-the-art filmmaking techniques and a fresh coat of topical sentiment.”67 This idea of topical sentiment can describe the post-9/11 fears harnessed in remaking discussed earlier as well as a range of other cultural preoccupations that are seized upon to give remakes contemporary appeal. In Chapter 3 I proposed that part of the reason that so many examples of canonical lit­ erature are repeatedly refilmed is because such material is highly malleable, thus able to be adapted to say something new-seeming and interesting to each generation. Something similar can be said for quality film ideas that are able to be easily tweaked to incorporate the new concerns of new eras. In the sections that follow, I focus on gender, race, health, the environment and violence as examples of social issues that are harnessed in remakes to modernize material and frame a new production as being “on trend.” The portrayal of women In 2017, the first season of the Hulu television series The Handmaid’s Tale aired. The originary material – Margaret Attwood’s 1985 novel – had previ­ ously been adapted in the 1990 film, but there seemed something distinctly contemporary about the new production, appearing to expertly harness a gendered anger that existed in the lead up to the 2016 US presidential election and came to a boiling point with the election of Donald Trump.68 While, in this example, the remake capitalized on a new feminist movement and an uprising against misogyny that was perceived as personified by the new government, women’s social standing in fact is commented on in a range of remakes whereby old stories are updated through the incorpora­ tion of topical feminist sentiment. The 2018 mini-series Picnic at Hanging Rock – a revisiting of material previously filmed in 1975 – is an example. A female-focused narrative based on a novel by a woman (Joan Lindsay) was reproduced for television with female directors at the helm and a predomi­ nantly female cast. Such material delivered new relevance to decades-old material, as well as took advantage of one of the supposed “trends” for filmmaking for 2018: the female gaze,69 whereby the idea of women being more than passive and objectified sex objects had heightened traction. Harness­ ing the changed status of women has shaped the kinds of films selected for

The fashionable remake

249

reproduction, something notably apparent in sex-swaps and feminist reim­ aginings.70 This idea can be illustrated through the range of female-centric productions released in the Trump/MeToo era, be they films with predomi­ nantly female casts, strong female protagonists or specifically focused on feminist issues, for example: • The superhero film Wonder Woman (2017), a remake of material first appearing on screen in a 1974 television movie. • The 2017 mini-series and the 2018 and 2019 film incarnations of the period-drama Little Women, filmed many times since 1917. • The period-drama The Beguiled (2017), a remake of the 1971 film, both based on the 1966 novel. • The remade melodrama Beaches (2017), a remake of the 1988 film. • The drama Gloria Bell (2018), a remake of the Chilean film Gloria (2013). • The heist drama Ocean’s 8 (2018), the sex-swapped Ocean’s 11 (1960/2001). • The horror film Suspiria (2018), a remake of the 1977 film. • The crime-drama Peppermint (2018), the sex-swapped remake of Death Wish (1974). • The adventure-drama Tomb Raider (2018), the remake of Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001). • The drama Ophelia (2018), the feminist retelling of Hamlet. • The 2019 version of the horror film Black Christmas (1974/2006). • The live-action Mulan (2020), the remake of the 1998 animation. The same idea is apparent through reboots and reimaginings of femalecentric television stories from this period, for example: One Day at a Time (1975–1984/2017–), Heathers (1988/2018), Sabrina, the Teenage Witch (1996–2003)/Chilling Adventures of Sabrina (2018–), Charmed (1998–2006; 2018–), Roseanne (1988–1997; 2018), Murphy Brown (1988–1998; 2018), Veronica Mars (2004–2007; 2019) and The L Word (2004–2009; 2019–). In the Trump/MeToo era, suddenly stories about women had perceived main­ stream appeal. (Further, as I discuss later in this chapter, the incorporation of explicitly feminist storylines can also be a means to freshen old material.) While Trump and MeToo ushered in these filmmaking trends, this wasn’t the first time that media had a heightened interest in women or, specifically, feminist issues. Literary scholar Anne-Marie Scholz discusses such a gen­ dered resurgence also transpiring in the mid-1990s in her examination of why, prior to 1995, there had been so few screen adaptations of Jane Austen novels, but after 1995 there were many. One explanation Scholz provides is the “changing conceptions of gender and cultural assessments of artistic quality.”71 For so long Austen had been excluded from the Western litera­ ture canon, but in the 1990s her work was reevaluated. As Scholz argues,

250 The fashionable remake things happening in the broader culture – for example the rise of “chick lit” in the late twentieth century – changed how Austen was viewed, both in her contributions to literature and also in terms of economic viability: [A]ssessments of Austen’s novels and their adaptations have been linked to changing perceptions of gender, and how her fiction, as well as her stakes as a gendered author(ity) have been enlisted by the con­ temporary adaptation industry both to address and to raise the stand­ ard according to postfeminist cultural issues.72 The 1990s revisiting of Jane Austen also coincided with political happen­ ings during this time, notably the 1992 “Year of the Woman” feminist resur­ gence that followed the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill senate hearing of 1991. A parallel situation – including use, again, of the “Year of the Woman” label – occurred following the election of Trump, and in the aftermath of the Brett Kavanaugh/Christine Blasey Ford senate hearing of 2018 (some­ thing I analyze elsewhere).73 The increased audience appetite for stories about women and written by women helps explain many of the Austen adaptations, as well as stories about women more broadly. This idea is also illustrated through the production of remakes where women are behind the script and/or the camera, something that remains rare but distinctly important in an industry that is so overwhelmingly dominated by men. Sofia Coppola’s Marie Antoinette (2006) is one example already discussed in this chapter, along with Wonder Woman (2017) directed by Patty Jenkins. Both Handmaid’s Tale and Picnic at Hanging Rock had several episodes directed by women, and a range of other remake projects with women writing and directing include: • The musical-romance Grease 2 (1982) – a “half-hearted remake” of Grease (1978)74 – directed by Patricia Birch. • The romance Desert Hearts (1985) – a lesbian-themed “semi-remake of The Misfits (1961)”75 – directed by Donna Deitch. • The romcom Just One of the Guys (1985) – “sort of like a teen remake of Yentl (1983)”76 – directed by Lisa Gottlieb. • The comedy Just My Luck (1991) – the remake of the French film La Chèvre (Knock on Wood) (1981) – directed by Nadia Tass. • The comedy The Beverly Hillbillies (1993) – the cinema adaptation of the television series (1962–1971) – directed by Penelope Spheeris. • The crime-drama D.O.A. (1988) – a remake of the 1949 film – co-directed by Annabel Jankel. • The made-for-television thriller Shadow of a Doubt (1991) – a remake of the 1943 Hitchcock film – directed by Karen Arthur. • The drama Paradise (1991) – a remake of the French film Le grand chemin (The Grand Highway) (1987) – directed by Mary Agnes Donoghue.

The fashionable remake

251

• The fantasy The Secret Garden (1993) – an adaptation of the Frances Hodgson Burnett story (1911), first filmed in 1919 – directed by Agnieszka Holland. • The romcom Go Fish (1994) – “sort of contemporary lesbian version of Gregory La Cava’s Stage Door [1937]”77 – written and directed by Rose Troche. • The period-drama Little Women (1994) directed by Gillian Armstrong. The 2017 mini-series was directed by Vanessa Caswill; the 2018 incar­ nation was directed and co-written by Clare Niederpruem, and the 2019 version was written by Greta Gerwig and the screenplay also written by Gerwig. • The romcom Clueless (1995) – a modern reimagining of Jane Austen’s Emma (1815), first filmed for television in 1948 in the UK – written and directed by Amy Heckerling. • The family-comedy Freaky Friday (1995) – the made for television remake of the 1976 film – directed by Melanie Mayron. • The romcom The Incredibly True Adventure of Two Girls in Love (1995) – as “a lesbian version of Risky Business [1983]”78 – written and directed by Maria Maggenti. • The Christmas-drama The Preacher’s Wife (1996) – a remake of The Bishop’s Wife (1947) – directed by Penny Marshall. • The romcom The Mirror Has Two Faces (1996) – a remake of Le Miroir à deux faces (The Mirror Has Two Faces) (1958) – directed by Barbra Streisand. • The drama A Thousand Acres (1997) – a contemporary telling of Shake­ speare’s King Lear, first filmed in 1910 – directed by Jocelyn Moorhouse. • The comedy Doctor Dolittle (1998) – a remake of the 1967 film – directed by Betty Thomas. • The family-comedy The Parent Trap (1998) – the remake of the 1961 film – directed and co-written by Nancy Meyers. • The period-drama Mansfield Park (1999) – based on the Jane Austen novel, first filmed first in 1983 – directed by Patricia Rozema. • The action-comedy D.E.B.S. (2004) – “the lesbian version of Charlie’s Angels [1976–1981; 2000]”79 – written and directed by Angela Robinson. • The comedy Bewitched (2005) – an adaptation of the television series (1964–1972) – written and directed by Nora Ephron. Ephron also wrote and directed the romcom You’ve Got Mail (1998), a remake of material previously filmed as The Shop Around the Corner (1940) and wrote and directed the comedy Mixed Nuts (1994), a remake of the French film Le père Noël est une ordure (Santa Claus is a Stinker) (1982). • The comedy The Producers (2005) – the remake of the 1967 film – directed by Susan Stroman. • The drama Little Fugitive (2006) – the remake of the 1953 film – directed by Joanna Lipper.

252 The fashionable remake • The French film Lady Chatterley (2006) – based on the D.H. Lawrence novel, filmed many times since 1955 – directed and co-written by Pascale Ferran. • The BBC mini-series Jane Eyre (2006) – based on Charlotte Brontë’s 1847 novel, adapted many times since the 1910 silent film – directed by Susanna White. • The crime-comedy Mad Money (2008) – the remake of the British film Hot Money (2001) – directed by Callie Khouri. • The comedy-drama The Women (2008) – the remake of the 1939 film – written and directed by Diane English. • The teen-comedy The First Time (2009) – the remake of the Danish Kaer­ lighed ved forste hik (Love at First Hiccough) (1999) – directed by Barbara Topsøe-Rothenborg. • The romcom And Then Came Lola (2009) – a lesbian remake of the Ger­ man film Lola rennt (Run Lola Run) (1998) – written and directed by Ellen Seidler and Megan Siler. • The family-drama The Greatest (2009) – a “gender-swap remake” of Moonlight Mile (2002)80 – written and directed by Shana Feste. Feste also directed and co-wrote Endless Love (2014), the remake of the 1981 film. • The New Zealand drama Kawa (2010) – “a more adult, gay version of American Beauty [1999]”81 – directed by Katie Wolfe. • The Dutch crime-drama Loft (2010) – a remake of the Belgian film (2008) – directed by Antoinette Beumer. • The French drama La belle endormie (The Sleeping Beauty) (2010) – a “queer rendition of Sleeping Beauty”82 – written and directed by Cath­ erine Breillat. • The Shakespeare drama The Tempest (2010) – first filmed in 1911 – is a sex-swapped reproduction written and directed by Julie Taymor. • The 2011 Wuthering Heights directed and co-written by Andrea Arnold. • The thriller Breaking the Girls (2012) – a “lesbian remake of Hitchcock’s classic Strangers on a Train [1951]”83 – directed by Jamie Babbit. • The horror film Silent House (2012) – a remake of the Uruguayan film, La casa muda (The Silent House) (2010) – was co-written and co-directed by Laura Lau. • The horror film Carrie (2013) – a remake of material previously filmed in 1976 and 2002 – directed by Kimberly Peirce. • The romcom Who’s Afraid of Vagina Wolf (2013) – the lesbian retelling of Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966) – directed by Anna Margarita Albelo. • The drama The Road Within (2014) – the remake of the German film Vincent will Meer (Vincent Wants to Sea) (2010) – directed by Gren Wells. • The crime-comedy Hot Pursuit (2015) – a sex-swapped remake of The Defiant Ones (1958) – directed by Anne Fletcher.

The fashionable remake

253

• The made-for-television horror movie Mother, May I Sleep with Danger? (2016) – the remake of the 1996 film – directed by Melanie Aitkenhead. • The BBC mini-series Jamaica Inn (2014) – filmed previously by Hitch­ cock in 1939 – written by Emma Frost and directed by Philippa Lowthorpe. • The made-for-television melodrama Beaches (2017) – the remake of the 1988 film – directed by Allison Anders. • The period-drama The Beguiled (2017) – the remake of the 1971 film – directed by Sofia Coppola. • The comedy Rough Night (2017) – described as “basically the female version of The Hangover [2009],”84 and a “feminist remake” of Very Bad Things (1998)85 – directed and co-written by Lucia Aniello. • The comedy Furlough (2018) – another sex-swapped remake of The Defi­ ant Ones – directed by Laurie Collyer. • The aforementioned Ophelia (2018) directed by Claire McCarthy. • The horror film The Lie (2018) – the remake of the German film Wir Monster (We Monsters) (2015) – directed by Veena Sud. • The drama The Kindergarten Teacher (2018) – the remake of the Israeli film Haganenet (The Kindergarten Teacher) (2014) – written and directed by Sara Colangelo. • The thriller Miss Bala (2019) – the remake of the 2011 Mexican film – directed by Catherine Hardwicke. • The action film Charlie’s Angels (2019) – the cinema adaption of the 1976–1981 series – written and directed by Elizabeth Banks. • The sci-fi horror film Rabid (2019) – the remake of the 1977 film – co-written and co-directed by Jen Soska and Sylvia Soska. • The thriller Angel of Mine (2019) – the remake of the French film L’empreinte de l’ange (Mark of an Angel) (2008) directed by Kim Farrant. • The horror film Black Christmas (2019) – the remake of 1974 and 2006 films – directed and co-written by Sophia Takal. • The live-action Mulan (2020) directed by Niki Caro. • The comedy-drama Emma (2020) – the re-adaptation of the 1815 Jane Austen story – directed by Autumn de Wilde. In a world where women directors still struggle to get studio work, it could be argued that they are potentially more likely to get a remake project off the ground than other kinds of films because of the comparatively safer bet of pre-tested content and the risk-aversion of studios. For bigger studio productions, such remakes are also likely to deliver a female director an audience of a size they otherwise would not have. Such productions also create the capacity to bring the unique gaze of a female filmmaker to a new production, thus helping an old story to be reimagined with a new sensibility. Elsewhere, for example, I explore the gaze of female remake directors like Sofia Coppola and Kimberly Peirce, helping to repackage

254 The fashionable remake old material as new – and notably feminist.86 In some cases like the Troche, Deitch, Maggenti, Albelo, Robinson, Wolfe, Seidler and Siler and Babbit productions listed earlier – not only are such films remade by women, but they are also queer reimaginings. Just as all remakes create the opportunity to do something new and creative with old material (Chapter 5), undoubt­ edly having women at the helm also raises new possibilities for storytelling. (Directors of color achieve something similar; Angela Robinson for exam­ ple, delivers both a queer and a black gaze to the aforementioned D.E.B.S.) Commentary on women’s issues and women’s social standing also pro­ vides an excuse to revisit past properties and modernize material and make it relevant for a new era (not to mention creating the opportunity for such productions to provide prepublicity hooks to commentators based on their “topical sentiment.”) While elsewhere I discuss sex-swapped protagonists as well as many newly feminist protagonists – such as Ella (Drew Barrymore) in the Cinderella remake Ever After (1998), or Belle (Emma Watson) in Beauty and the Beast87 – in other examples, remakes incorporate new and distinctly gendered concerns in an effort to appear modern. Discussing Wentworth (2013–), the Australian remake of the drama series Prisoner (1979–1986) for example, Luke Sharp and Liz Giuffre observe some of the ways that the material is updated: [I]n Wentworth, Bea [Danielle Cormack] isn’t behind bars for the manslaughter of her best friend (who was having an affair with her husband) but rather for the attempted murder of her husband who subjects her to domestic violence. . . . In each case, changes in how crime and its consequences are considered have been adapted for a contemporary audience.88 Here, Wentworth is modernized by side-lining gendered storyline tropes, and instead, spotlights specific feminist concerns like domestic violence. The incorporation of MeToo-era storylines is similarly used to freshen old material and make it seem “ripped from the headlines” and fashionable: the reboots of sitcoms Will & Grace (1998–2006; 2017–) and the afore­ mentioned rebooted Murphy Brown, for example, each had sexual harass­ ment episodes, with such stories serving as a way to help to distinguish the rebooted material from the series of old.89 Just as remade content can provide a contemporary take on women’s issues, such reproductions are also important barometers for how race rela­ tions have also evolved. Race In film theorist Robert Eberwein’s taxonomy of remakes, he lists a specific category that changes the race of the main characters.90 In a range of examples, originary films that had been originally made with

The fashionable remake

255

a predominantly white cast or a white protagonist are remade as more racially diverse. During the preparation of this manuscript, for example, a remake of the 1989 animation The Little Mermaid was announced, with black actress Halle Bailey cast as Ariel.91 Such a film follows the template of the 1997 Cinderella whereby a classic fairy tale was recast with black actors including Brandy, Whoopi Goldberg and Whitney Houston. Such race-swapping – or race-bending as it is sometimes termed – occurs in a range of examples: • The drama Ten Nights in a Barroom (1926) is an all-black version of a film that had been made many times previously with all-white casts. • The drama Dirty Gertie from Harlem U.S.A. (1946) is a black remake of Sadie Thompson (1928). • The drama Anna Lucasta (1958) is a black remake of the 1949 film. • The thriller Uptight (1968) is a Blaxploitation remake of The Informer (1935). • The drama The Lost Man (1969) is a remake of the British film Odd Man Out (1947), with black actor Sidney Poitier in the lead. • The crime-drama Shaft (1971) has been described as “a black version of Harper [1966], with a better score,”92 and as “a black version of The French Connection (1971).”93 • The comedy-horror Blacula (1972) is the Blaxploitation remake of the Dracula story, first filmed in Russia in 1920. • The crime-drama Cool Breeze (1972) is the Blaxploitation remake of The Asphalt Jungle (1950). • The crime-drama Hit Man (1972) is a Blaxploitation remake of the Brit­ ish film Get Carter (1971). • The US sitcom Sanford and Son (1972–1977) is a black remake of the British series Steptoe and Son (1962–1974). • The comedy sci-fi The Thing with Two Heads (1972) is a Blaxploitation remake of the aforementioned Defiant Ones. • The comedy-horror Blackenstein (1973) is a Blaxploitation remake of Frankenstein, first filmed in 1910. • The action-drama Black Caesar (1973) is a Blaxploitation remake of Lit­ tle Caesar (1931). • The crime-comedy Black Mama White Mama (1973) is a Blaxploitation remake of the aforementioned Defiant Ones. • The horror film Abby (1974) is a Blaxploitation remake of The Exorcist (1973). • The aforementioned The Wiz (1978) is a black remake of The Wizard of Oz (1939). • The drama Body and Soul (1981) is a Blaxploitation remake of the 1947 film. • The comedy Brewster’s Millions (1985) – a remake of material first filmed in 1914 – put black actor Richard Pryor in the protagonist role.

256 The fashionable remake • The family-adventure television movie Polly: Comin’ Home! (1990) is a black remake of Pollyanna (1960). • The superhero-comedy film Blankman (1994) has been described as a “black version of Batman.”94 • In The House (1995–1999) is a black remake of the sitcom Who’s the Boss (1984–1992). • In 1996, the comedy The Nutty Professor – the remake of the 1963 film – had mostly black characters, nearly all of which were played by black actor Eddie Murphy. • The aforementioned Christmas-drama The Preacher’s Wife – the 1996 reimagining of The Bishop’s Wife (1947) – was remade with a black cast. • The comedy Phat Beach (1996) has been described as a “black version of Beach Blanket Bingo [1965].”95 • The Christmas drama Ms. Scrooge (1997) is a sex- and race-swapped remake of the classic Dickens story A Christmas Carol (1843): the stand­ ard white male Scrooge is reimagined with a black actress (Cicely Tyson). • The action-sci film Steel (1997) is considered as a “black version of Super­ man [1978].”96 • The aforementioned comedy Doctor Dolittle (1998) – a remake of the 1967 film – replaced Rex Harrison with Eddie Murphy. • The comedy-horror Leprechaun in the Hood (2000) is a black remake of Leprechaun (1993). • The comedy-horror film Scary Movie (2000) has been described as a “black version of Scream [1996].”97 • The sci-fi film Blade II (2002) is described as “an epic Blaxploitation remake of The Dirty Dozen [1967].”98 • The comedy Juwanna Mann (2002), with its black cast, is described as a “godawful remake of Tootsie [1982].”99 • The comedy Black Knight (2001) is a black remake of A Connecticut Yan­ kee in King Arthur’s Court (1949). • The thriller The Truth About Charlie (2002) – the remake of Charade (1963) – replaced Audrey Hepburn with the black actress Thandie Newton. • The teen-romcom Love Don’t Cost a Thing (2003) is a black remake of Can’t Buy Me Love (1987). • The comedy Johnson Family Vacation (2004) is a black remake of National Lampoon’s Vacation (1983).100 • The comedy Soul Plane (2004) is a black remake of Airplane! (1980). • The crime-drama Four Brothers (2005) has been described as a “neo­ blaxploitation remake” of the Western The Sons of Katie Edler (1965).101 • The comedy The Honeymooners (2005) is a black version of the 1955– 1956 sitcom. • The romcom Last Holiday (2006) is a sex and race-swapped remake of the 1950 film: the white male protagonist is replaced with the black actress Queen Latifah.

The fashionable remake

257

• The romcom I Think I Love My Wife (2007) is a black remake of the French film L’amour l’après-midi (Love in the Afternoon) (1972). • The comedy Who’s Your Caddy? (2007) is a black remake of Caddyshack (1980). • The aforementioned sci-fi drama I am Legend (2007) put black actor Will Smith at the helm of a remake of The Omega Man (1971). • The thriller Single Black Female (2009) is a black remake of Single White Female (1992). • In 2010, the comedy Death at a Funeral – the US remake of the 2007 Brit­ ish film – was recast with mostly black actors. • The family-drama The Karate Kid (2010) – the remake of the 1984 – had black actor Jaden Smith at the helm. • The comedy-crime drama Scrooge in the Hood (2011) is another black remake of A Christmas Carol. • Django Unchained (2012) is described as having put a “Blaxploitation twist” on Django (1966).102 • In 2012, the melodrama Steel Magnolias (1989) was remade for televi­ sion with a black cast. • The comedy Peeples (2013) is a black remake of Meet the Parents (1992/2000). • In 2014, the family-musical Annie – a remake of the 1982 film – replaced the white, red-headed title character with a black actress (Quvenzhané Wallis). • The romcom About Last Night (2014) is a black remake of the 1986 film. • The horror mini-series Rosemary’s Baby (2014) – an adaptation of the 1968 film – replaces the white protagonist mother with black actress Zoe Saldana. • The sitcom Uncle Buck (2016) is a black remake of the movie (1989) and earlier series (1990–1991). • The comedy Fifty Shades of Black (2016) is a black spoof of the eroticdrama Fifty Shades of Grey (2015). • The aforementioned made-for-television melodrama Beaches (2017) – a remake of the 1988 film – recast one of the protagonists as black in contrast to the two white protagonists of the earlier film. While, as I have discussed elsewhere, considering any film as the “female version” or the “black version” is highly reductive – boiling down a plot to the mere similarities it shares with its predecessor can be limiting and often unhelpful103 – arguably, this is a criticism applicable to all remake studies whereby a constant coupling of films occur, even when substantial differ­ ences exist between the productions. Regardless of the merit of the “black remake” label, however, the idea of changing the race through a remake is illustrative of several interesting drivers of screen reproductions. First, in some examples – the 1996 The Nutty Professor and the 1998 Doctor Dolittle are good illustrations – such productions were primarily star vehicle remakes: in these examples, the films didn’t address race in any meaningful

258 The fashionable remake way, but functioned to provide a comic vehicle for the popular comedian, Eddie Murphy. The same point can be made about Richard Pryor in the 1985 Brewster’s Millions. Equally, for highly successful box office draws like Sidney Poitier or Will Smith, indeed, the casting of a black actor in a role that had previously been occupied by a white actor is noteworthy and can be read as both a race-swap and a political statement; such films however, can equally be construed as star-vehicles where the success of two popu­ lar leading men gets capitalized on (Chapter 1). Such points don’t make it unimportant that a black man is now the protagonist – obviously repre­ sentation remains a pertinent issue for the historically under- or poorly represented – but it’s important to recognize that some remakes that swap race don’t actually swap anything else, whereas others are made substan­ tially more political. For Blaxploitation films, for example, race is central to the narratives, whereby such films are seen – as contended by cultural theo­ rist Brooks Hefner – as a “reaction against over-assimilated roles portrayed by actors like Sidney Poitier.”104 Blaxploitation films don’t provide a “black version” so much as entirely reposition the gaze and reimagine the place of race in American society. While Blaxploitation films are often doing other things as well – Blacula, for example, can also be considered to operate simi­ lar to the spoof and satire remakes discussed in Chapter 5 – it also provides a commentary on race that was absent from earlier white screen incarna­ tions of Dracula, something Hefner also discusses: Blacula presents an interesting problem; its mixture of genres contains the possibility for a double-edged critique. Although monstrosity in horror films has often worked to demonize difference (whether racial, sexual, or otherwise), the film’s foreground of blackness in its romanti­ cized monster creates the potential to reverse this dynamic, particularly in a Blaxploitation mode that generally sees whiteness as the repository of danger.105 Hefner also spotlights – akin to many Blaxploitation narratives more broadly, which are known for their overt sexual (and sometimes sexist) presentations – that Blacula (1972) “exoticized blackness for profit while subtly reinforcing the white heteronormative patriarchy.”106 Black remakes – and Blaxploitation remakes specifically – also comply with the remake remit of expanding the film’s reach to carve out a new and historically underserved audience, in this case, African American viewers, as well as to create opportunities to be creative with an old story: with Blaxploi­ tation films characterized by high-level sex and violence, such reproduc­ tions become notably adult-targeted, distancing them from their often tamer predecessors (Chapter 5). Even outside of Blaxploitation narratives, examples exist where an effort is made to push race to the forefront as a key component of modernization. Discussed earlier was The Lost Man, the remake of Odd Man Out. The first film centered on an Irish national leader who attempted to rob a mill to

The fashionable remake

259

fund independence operations. The remake focused on a group of black militants who rob a factory to fund a race revolution. Race issues were simi­ larly at the fore of Sanford and Son, the remake of Steptoe and Son. Analyzing the two series, cultural theorist James Martens observes: What made Sanford and Son distinct from Steptoe was that while it was conceived from the ideas of Steptoe and Son, it built its stories around issues of the American culture of its day. Racial tensions obviously played an important role in the show.107 Economic justifications are also drivers for black remakes. While audience expansion is part of this as noted, a black version is also a means to further populate a studio’s catalogue at a (comparatively) low cost. Film theorist Paul Woods, for example, flags that “A lot of the black crime films literally were the old Warner Brothers movies redone with black casts.”108 Woods named the aforementioned Cool Breeze and Hit Man as such examples. While in this section I have elected to focus on black remakes, as these are the most numerous, occasionally other kinds of race-swapping occurs. While this, of course, is standard practice when a US film is remade inter­ nationally – i.e., predictably the white cast of the drama Sideways (2004) becomes Japanese when the film is remade in Japan as Saidoweizu (Sideways) (2009); similarly, the white cast of the romcom What Women Want (2000) of course becomes Chinese when the film is remade as Wo zhi nv ren xin (What Women Want) (2011) in China – sometimes other kinds of race-swapping happens stateside. The aforementioned sitcom One Day at a Time (2017–), for example – a remake of One Day at a Time (1975–1984) – took a series originally about a white family and remade it about a Cuban-American fam­ ily: reviewers describe the remade series as a “Latino family remake”109 and as an “all-Latino remake.”110 The family-drama Tortilla Soup (2001) was simi­ larly described as “the Latino remake” of Ang Lee’s Eat Drink Man Woman (1994)111 and that it took “Ang Lee’s story . . . and adjusted it to the ‘tastes’ of its Latino-American family (and presumed market).”112 The US/Mexican romcom From Prada to Nada (2011) provides another such example, serv­ ing as a modern, and notably Latina spin on Jane Austen’s novel Sense and Sensibility (1811), first filmed in 1971. Such examples aren’t common in the American film industry but are nonetheless worth flagging, notably in their efforts to use an old narrative to tell a story of contemporary America. Just as gender and race are issues often used to modernize material, so too are contemporary mental and physical health concerns, as discussed in the next section. Mental and physical health Discussed earlier was the impact of 9/11 on remakes. While 9/11 reintro­ duced the salience of issues like surveillance and paranoia, also relevant are related mental health issues as a means by which zeitgeist markers can be

260 The fashionable remake harnessed in a remake to help a new production appear modern. Lavigne, for example, in her discussion of the two Beauty and the Beast series, observes that “the psychologically damaged lead seems to be increasingly common.”113 The idea of a protagonist who is deeper and more complex taps into several filmmaking trends identifiable from the early 2000s onwards such as knot­ tier narratives (as discussed in Chapter 5) and, as specifically relevant to this discussion, multifaceted, often conflicted protagonists, embodying the fears and preoccupations felt by their audience. Riddlehoover, for example, observes some of the differences between horror films of the 80s and those made in the 2000s whereby in the new films there is a heightened role for psychology: “[Nowadays] evil does not exist. Something made that person evil. . . . Freddy [Krueger] is a prick because he enjoys being a prick – not because someone made him that way.”114 Christopher Campbell observes a similar trend in IndieWire, noting that modern horror remakes “infuse more psychological seriousness into a movie that should be just fun, mindless, splatter-filled entertainment.”115 Film theorist David Greven discusses the different role for psychology in the 2007 Halloween films as compared to its 1978 predecessor, identifying that the remake distinguished itself through “two often interrelated obses­ sions that have come to define American popular culture since the early 1990s and well into the present: the serial killer and the dysfunctional fam­ ily.”116 Knöppler discusses the same two films, similarly spotlighting: Halloween (2007) vastly expands on the 1978 film. Almost half of the film’s running time is spent on the back story of Michael Myers, from his life as a troubled kid and the murder of his family to the attempts at therapy and his escape and return to Haddonfield.117 The point Riddlehoover and Greven allude to – and one that Knöppler examines throughout his book – is the tendency for contemporary films to pathologize evil: as Riddlehoover spotlighted, evil isn’t just is, but rather is given a mental health explanation within the narrative. Knöppler also dis­ cusses this as related to the contrast between the 1974 and 2003 The Texas Chainsaw Massacre films: The previous film already insinuated that the young travellers partially invited their suffering through careless trespassing, but this logic is far more pronounced in the remake. . . . This is no longer an entirely ran­ dom, pointlessly violent universe, it is ordered by a logic that sees the immoral and self-absorbed punished.118 While such 2000-era films can be viewed as part of the post-9/11 climate of fear and anxiety and seen as a response to audiences wanting to see the psychological complexities of their own lives portrayed, scholars like

The fashionable remake

261

psychiatrist Sharon Packer suggest that a heightened interest in psychology, in fact, pre-dated 9/11 a little and was more attributable to the new millen­ nium: “As the twentieth century drew to a close, and as the millennial spirit captures film audiences and filmmakers alike, the abstract concept of the liminal (the betwixt and between state) found its way into film.”119 Packer compares, for example, the 1959 and 1999 horror films House on Haunted Hill and contends that the predecessor “Was much campier and less philo­ sophical than the remake” and points to the 1999 film’s more serious take on the “supernatural asylum thriller.” If inclined, this change in climate can also be dated to the 1999 Columbine massacre and a detectable social shift evident in public conversations attempting to sideline discussions of evil and focus more explicitly on mental health. Even outside of horror, the modernizing of old stories through poppsychology is detectable. Alison Willmore in Buzzfeed, for example, observes that part of the updates observable in Maleficent (2014) – the live-action update of the animated Sleeping Beauty (1959) – involved making the titular protagonist more psychologically complicated: “Angelina Jolie transformed Sleeping Beauty’s vampy villain into a misunderstood and mistreated anti­ hero.”120 The enhanced psychological complexity of a remake has, in fact, been mentioned in a range of reviews: • The adventure-drama Mutiny on the Bounty (1935) – filmed previously as The Mutiny of the Bounty (1916) and In the Wake of the Bounty (1933) – as “much more for grownups – more psychological nuance, more moral ambiguity, and naked native girls to boot.”121 • The Thing (1982) – the remake of The Thing From Another World (1951) – as “a gorier and more psychological remake.”122 • I Spit on Your Grave (2010) – the remake of the 1978 film – as “more psychological this time round.”123 • Carrie (2013) – the remake of the 1976 film – as “darker and more psychological.”124 • Pet Sematary (2019) – the remake of the 1989 film – as “more psycho­ logical thriller than horror”125 and as “psychologically horrific.”126 • Hellboy (2019) – the remake of the 2004 film – as a “more psychological exploration.”127 The provision of psychological explanations for bad behavior is one way that a narrative can be expanded and deepened and also illustrates the notion of stories sometimes becoming more complicated (in contrast to – or perhaps happening simultaneously with – the dumbing-down of remakes discussed in Chapter 4). Remakes can also use specific modern psychologi­ cal approaches to update material and frame it as abreast of modern think­ ing. James Francis Jr. in his work on horror remakes, for example, contrasts the 1960 and 1998 versions of Psycho examining the impact of one of Van

262 The fashionable remake Sant’s tweaks as evidencing several decades of progressive psychological thinking: The last fight scene alters a 1960s fear of sexual and mental difference in transvestitism and turns it into a killer in drag with no rooted motives . . . the psychiatrist’s lines that explain transvestitism are also removed.128 By making such a narrative change, the linking of queerness and psychopa­ thy is eliminated, in line with modern psychology’s greater tolerance for sexual and gender diversity and the contemporary disinclination to pathol­ ogize difference. Just as mental health is a way to update old material and give it contem­ porary relevance, so too are physical health concerns. Just as terrorism gave horror and sci-fi a new focal point and a new “other” and “threat” to frighten audiences, HIV/AIDS achieved something similar in the 1980s and 1990s. While there are many films that deal specifically with the disease – think Longtime Companion (1989), Philadelphia (1993), It’s My Party (1996) and, more recently, 120 battements par minute (BPM [Beats Per Minute]) (2017) and Plaire, aimer et courir vite (Sorry Angel) (2018) – in relation to remakes, the disease is most often detected via allusion or metaphor, something KyloPatrick Hart discusses in his work on media representations of HIV/AIDS: A variation on including AIDS characters in non-AIDS movies involves featuring characters with symptoms similar to those of HIV/AIDS in non-AIDS movies that are encoded intentionally to serve as metaphors for AIDS movies. In other words, the narratives of AIDS metaphor mov­ ies do not explicitly incorporate characters living with and/or dying from HIV/AIDS specifically rather, they incorporate characters living with and/or dying from medical conditions that are metaphorically analogous to HIV/AIDS.129 While Hart’s work doesn’t include an analysis of remakes, several other scholars have cited HIV/AIDS as a means of storyline update. Several theo­ rists, for example, have pointed to The Thing (1982) – the remake of The Thing From Another World (1951) – as providing an allusion to the fears of blood-borne viruses.130 While Knöppler cautions that – given that the film was released in June 1982 and that the AIDS scare had not achieved public awareness at the time – such a film is more likely to be retrospectively ana­ lyzed as an AIDS metaphor rather than actually being one (at least during its cinema run).131 Other films are a little more overt in their allusions. In a 2000 Chicago Tribune article, for example, Shaila Dewan suggests that “[t]he idea that horror films reflect, or even caricature, society’s collective anxie­ ties is nothing new” and suggests that the surge in vampire narratives was a “coded response to the trauma of AIDS.”132 Remade vampire narratives – i.e., Dracula (1992), Fright Night (1985/2011), Dracula 2000 (2000), Let Me In (2010) – could, therefore, be construed as illustrating this. K. Thor Jensen

The fashionable remake

263

explores similar ideas in his work on the impact of AIDS on sci-fi, discussing the 1958 and 1986 versions of The Fly and identifying that the remake was undergirded by a new blood-borne threat: David Cronenberg’s remake of The Fly was also heavily influenced by the culture around AIDS. The Canadian director is one of the leading practitioners of body horror, and the core story of the 1986 movie – a man contracts a disease that slowly destroys his body and his lover has to help him compassionately end his life before he hurts other people – is a very potent metaphor for the disease.133 While during the height of the AIDS crisis, such films were, of course, open to interpretation as referencing the disease – particularly so when audi­ ences wanted to see their world portrayed, and marginalized people nota­ bly wanted to see their struggles on screen – it’s worth spotlighting that, given that HIV and AIDS aren’t actually mentioned in these films, such interpretations don’t necessarily express filmmaker intentions but more so reflect the contribution of audiences and film theorists to analysis and legacy and spotlight the scholarly re-examinations that remake production can inspire (Chapter 2). Other kinds of health issues also have a role in modernizing material. Cultural theorist Oliver Lindner, for example, discusses Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011) – which he considers as a remake of Conquest of the Planet of the Apes (1972) – and observes that concerns around medical ethics served as a means to update the material: Major new aspects of the 2011 version are the themes of genetic engineering, medical research, and the ethical responsibility of the researcher, replacing the ethical question about treating apes as slaves in the original film.134 Lindner observes that the remake “reflects many general anxieties linked to the rise of genetic engineering over the last decades, specifically with regard to its moral implications.”135 Worth noting, some of these issues were also tools used in the 2004 reimagining of The Manchurian Candidate: some­ thing Michael Butler mentions in his comparison of the remake and its 1962 predecessor, observing that the 2004 film incorporated “contempo­ rary anxieties about bioengineering, use of computer animations, psycho­ tropic drugs, and high-tech chips implanted into the victims bodies,” as compared to the original film, which was, as discussed earlier, a commen­ tary on Cold War paranoia.136 Michael Druxman, in his 1975 book on remakes, also nominates the social issue of housing and homelessness as a means to update old stories: Timeliness has, indeed, been the reason for several remakes during the past few years. Walk, Don’t Run a 1966 revamping of The More the

264 The fashionable remake Merrier, took the 1943 George Stevens comedy about wartime housing conditions in Washington D.C., and set it against the background of the Tokyo Olympics.137 Both films focused on the romcom scenario of an older man playing cupid to a younger couple, but the 1966 story specifically distinguished itself by being set against the backdrop of a modern, real-life social concern. The broader notion of socioeconomic issues helping to reimagine a story is also relevant to It Happened One Christmas (1977), the sex-swapped remake of It’s a Wonderful Life (1946). While more than three decades separate the two films, cultural theorist Ronald Scheer observes that in 1977 the time had come, once again, to reflect on some of the socioeconomic challenges that had transpired in the intervening years: The timing seems appropriate, for it came in a period of disorienta­ tion in the American spirit, of self-doubt and uncertainty, not unlike the national mood of the post-war years. Inflation, unemployment, and unsettling social changes had left few Americans untouched.138 While socioeconomic issues like housing are used to update The More the Merrier into Walk Don’t Run and to give new relevance to an old Capra story, two other social issues used to update material include the environment and violence. Environment Natural disasters have long been fodder for remakes whereby the unpre­ dictability of nature delivers audiences something to fear and, potentially, also something to triumph over. In more recent years, films have used the theme of climate change as a modern-day threat, and it is no surprise that allusions to the environment – be it conservation or climate change – can update content for a new era. An early example of this is apparent in Heaven Can Wait (1978), a remake of the aforementioned Here Comes Mr. Jordan (1941). Literary theorist Linda Hutcheon observes that as part of the updating, “relevant anti-nuclear and environmental themes of the day were inserted.”139 In Knöppler’s discussion of Body Snatchers (1993) – the remake of the aforementioned Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) – he similarly notes that part of the modernizing involved altering the career of the protagonist: in the 1956 film the central character is a small-town doctor; in the 1993 remake he works as an Environment Protection Agency inspector. As Knöppler observes, this change “introduce[s] a discourse on infection and chemical contamination that touches on contemporary fears.”140 James Roman, in his discussion of blockbuster films, also observes that The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008) – the remake of the 1951 film – was remade “with an environmental theme,”141 swapping the predecessor’s Cold War threat of nuclear warfare with the damage done to the planet by

The fashionable remake

265

humans – something that the remake’s star, Keanu Reeves, explains, in rela­ tion to his alien character Klaatu: The first one was borne out of the Cold War and nuclear détente. Klaatu came and was saying cease and desist with your violence. If you can’t do it yourselves we’re going to do it. That was the film of that day. . . . The version I was just working on, instead of being man against man, it’s more about man against nature. My Klaatu says that if the Earth dies, you die. If you die, the earth survives. I’m a friend to the earth.142 Something similar is apparent in the family-comedy The Shaggy Dog (2006), the remake of the 1959 film. A reviewer spotlights – and also criticizes – that the remake introduces a “politically correct element of animal-advocacy activ­ ism.”143 (I explore politically correct remakes in more detail elsewhere.)144 While remakes often harness contemporary issues to update material for a new era, it would, of course, be erroneous to assume that this always occurs. While I end this chapter discussing material that eschews update altogether, it’s worth flagging an example of a remake that seems unaware (or overtly ignorant) of contemporary environmental concerns. Despite heightened awareness of environmental issues transpiring between the 1954 and 2001 Fast and the Furious action-dramas, this isn’t something discernible from the remake. Discussing the films, communications scholars Robin Murray and Joseph Heumann observe that the remake and its sequels “advocate a heightened abuse of nature and ecosystems.”145 While, of course, it could be argued that a film about high speed car chases is predictably unlikely to ever be too concerned with environmental issues, the 2001 reproduction nonetheless is an example of a remake that elects to exist in a bubble rather than actively harness social issues. Violence In Chapter 5 I discuss the tendency for remakes to be darker, grittier, scar­ ier and often more violent. In many examples a more violent update is part of an effort to make a reproduction look more modern and cuttingedge. Francis, for example, in his discussion of Romeo + Juliet, identifies that, “[Baz] Luhrmann updated his film with guns instead of swords to comment on violence in contemporary society.”146 While such a film might have been commenting on violence – notably so gun violence in America – it also used it as a modernizing device as well as an aesthetic tool: one of the posters for the film showed the central couple kissing, framed by a highly-stylized bor­ der of men pointing guns. In other examples however, violence is included to provide more overt commentary. Earlier in this chapter I discussed Wentworth – the remake of the television series Prisoner – whereby the incor­ poration of a domestic violence storyline modernizes the material through a contemporary social issue.

266 The fashionable remake Commentary on the social issue of violence can also occur even when a toning down of content transpires. In Chapter 5 I discussed remakes made as less scary to cater to a broader audience. Historically this has certainly been the case for cinema releases remade for broadcast television where explicitness is frequently reduced. Violence can also be reduced to com­ ment on evolving cultural attitudes. Scheer provides an interesting example of this in his discussion of the aforementioned It Happened One Christmas, the remake of It’s a Wonderful Life, where he spotlights the elimination of some of the violence perpetrated against children that had been apparent in the 1946 film: In a nerve-jangling scene, Gower [Dick O’Neill] boxes the boy [Young George] until his deaf ear bleeds, and we realize how our tolerance for the depiction of child abuse has diminished. In the TV remake of this scene, Gower makes only an uncompleted verbal threat to Mary [Lynn Woodlock].”147 Such an example demonstrates recognition of decades of changed attitudes toward violence against children, particularly violence that in a Christmasthemed family-drama would seem unconscionable. Joseph McBride discusses something similar in the context of racial vio­ lence in his exploration of Riding High (1950), Frank Capra’s autoremake of Broadway Bill (1934): “When Capra remade the story fifteen years later, the treatment of Whitney (played again by [Clarence] Muse) became more polite in keeping with the changing times – Dan no longer abused him physically.”148 A decade on from the first incarnation of the film, Capra was able to mirror growing cultural discomfort with white abuse of black actors on screen and thus eliminated some of the more overtly racist displays.149 Francis presents a similar example of changing attitudes toward violence in his discussion of the horror film The Last House on the Left (2009), the remake of the 1972, whereby – at least by some measures – the remake can be interpreted as less violent: “Unlike the original, there is less grit presented in the assaults, and when Mari [Sara Paxton] is shot in the lake, her body drifts away, but she does not die.”150 While horror films are often criticized for the trauma they inflict on the bodies of women, the 2009 The Last House on the Left arguably appears cognizant that a mere procession of brutalized bodies of women is inappropriate in contemporary mainstream horror; that audience expectations have altered somewhat. Elsewhere, I similarly observe that certain horror remakes update the gender relations through presenting women as perpetrators of violence and not just victims of it.151 Another key way that trends are observed in reproductions is via the choice to remake the fashionable content of certain nations.

The fashionable remake

267

Fashionably foreign Throughout the history of American filmmaking, there have been remakes of international content (Chapter 4). The idea of certain kinds of transna­ tional remakes being part of both a cash-grab and a harnessing of happen­ ings in broader culture is examined in this section. In his Maclean’s article on remakes, Johnson notes that: Remakes of arty foreign language shockers, like The Vanishing [1998/1993] or The Ring [1998/2002], come with a loftier rationale: we’re bringing hyper-cool world cinema to American viewers who won’t read subtitles.152 The notion of what is cool – or hyper-cool – is not stagnant, but Hollywood has a vested interest in attempting to harness trends happening in popular culture as a means to appeal to audiences and appear cutting-edge and suitably at the vanguard (even if, as McDonald spotlights, this is rarely actu­ ally the case for the major studios). Film theorist Lucy Mazdon, for exam­ ples, flags that films from France are remade more often than those of other countries.153 While the interest of Americans in French culture may be an explanation for this – France, after all, is one of the most popular international destinations for US tourists – this is something that is prob­ ably more so attributable to the size and scope of the French film industry compared to those of other countries, as well as the enduring reputation of French films as artistic and important. While theorists like Mazdon, as well as Carolyn Durham, have extensively analyzed US remakes of French films154 – something that is arguably less of a trend and more so something that has consistently occurred since the earliest days of Hollywood film production – more recently other fashions have been channeled into trans­ national remakes, helping to dictate the projects selected for reproduction. While examples of American remakes of Scandinavian media can be found throughout history – from the Swedish Intermezzo (1936) being remade in the US with the same title in 1939 (and then as Honeysuckle Rose in 1980) or the Swedish romcom Sommarnattens leende (Smiles of a Summer Night) (1955) remade as A Little Night Music (1977) – in recent years certain genres of Scandinavian content have garnered heightened interest from US studios. The popularity of Stieg Larsson’s Lisbeth Salander novels in the mid-2000s, for example, ushered in a trend toward Scandi-Noir – or Nordic-Noir as it is sometimes termed – whereby translated crime novels from Scandinavian countries were doing a roaring trade in English speak­ ing countries. Such an interest invariably led to some of this material being adapted for the screen, beginning with Scandinavian screen productions of Scandi-noir literature. It also, predictably, led to American remakes of these productions. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011) – the remake of Män som

268 The fashionable remake hatar kvinnor (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) (2009) – is one example of a US remake of a Swedish adaptation of a Scandi-Noir novel; some US televi­ sion examples include: • • • •

Wallander (2005–2014) remade with the same title (2008–2016). Forbrydelsen (The Killing) (2007–2012) remade as The Killing (2011–2014). Den som dræber (Those Who Kill) (2011) remade as Those Who Kill (2014). Bron/Broen (The Bridge) (2011–2018) remade as The Bridge (2013– 2013).

A preoccupation with all things Scandinavian can also be witnessed in US reproductions of other kinds of Scandinavian content. Mentioned earlier in this chapter was The First Time, the remake of the Danish teen-comedy. Other examples include: • The Swedish/Norwegian comedy-thriller Hodet over vannet (Head Above Water) (1993) remade in the US as Head Above Water (1996). • The Norwegian thriller Insomnia (1997) remade in the US (2002). • The Swedish comedy Naken (Naked) (2000) remade in the US as Naked (2017). • The Swedish fantasy-thriller Den osynlige (The Invisible) (2002) remade as The Invisible (2007). • The Danish children’s action-drama Klatretøsen (The Climbing Girl) (2002) remade in the US as Catch That Kid (2004). • The Danish horror film Midsommer (Midsummer) (2003) remade in the US as Solstice (2008). • The Danish psychological-drama Brødre (Brothers) (2004) remade in the US as Brothers (2009). • The Danish/Swedish/Norwegian drama Efter brylluppet (After the Wed­ ding) (2006) remade in the US as After the Wedding (2019). • The Swedish vampire film Låt den rätte komma (Let the Right One in) (2008) remade in the US as Let Me In (2010). • The Icelandic thriller Reykjavik-Rotterdam (2008) remade in the US as Contraband (2012). • The Icelandic comedy-drama Á annan veg (Either Way) (2011) remade in the US as Prince Avalanche (2013). • The Norwegian action-drama Kraftidioten (In Order of Disappearance) (2014) remade in the US as Cold Pursuit (2019). • The Norwegian teen series Skam (Shame) (2015–2017) remade in the US in 2018–. American remakes of films Hundraåringen som klev ut genom fönstret och förs­ vann (The Hundred Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out of the Window and Dis­ appeared) (2013), Force Majeure (Tourist) (2014), and En man som heter Ove (A Man Called Ove) (2015) are also in production at the time of writing.

The fashionable remake

269

Harnessing trends in the culture – and, notably, trends in screen output – of certain nations can also be interpreted as a key driver for the many US remakes of Asian horror films discussed in Chapter 3, whereby something new and exotic is offered to audiences albeit through the familiar and nota­ bly subtitle-free vehicle of the American reproduction. The “good” of trends in foreign media is thus translated and made palatable for American – and global – audiences. Harnessing trends in Hollywood is an important way for a remake to ingratiate itself with a new audience, but sometimes remakes sideline such updates. While for films like the Fast and the Furious remake discussed ear­ lier audiences may not care that the film isn’t abreast of environmental issues, in other examples not updating material to take into consideration trends and fashion can lead to a critical and box office failure, as explored in the next section.

The anachronistic remake In a range of reviews of remakes, new material is called-out by reviewers as being anachronistic, for example: • The war-drama The Razor’s Edge (1984) as an “ambitious, if anachronis­ tic, remake” of the 1946 film.155 • The melodrama Stella (1990) as an “anachronistic remake” of Stella Dal­ las (1925/1937).156 • The comedy-drama Alfie (2004) as an “anachronistic remake” of the 1966 film.157 • The comedy Meet the Fockers (2004) as “a pointlessly anachronistic remake of Abie’s Irish Rose [1946].”158 • The musical-drama Footloose (2011) as an “anachronistic remake” of the 1984 film.159 Terms like old-fashioned and old hat encapsulate the same criticism: • The comedy The Out-of-Towners (1999) – the remake of the 1970 film – criticized as “curiously old-fashioned.”160 • The made-for-television vampire drama Mother, May I Sleep With Dan­ ger (2016) – the remake of the 1996 film – described as “old hat. It is the oldest hat. There are hats worn by dinosaurs that are not as old as this.”161 • The thriller Funny Games (2007) – the US autoremake of the 1997 Aus­ trian film – as “wear[ing] an air of old hat.”162 • The crime-drama Prime Suspect (2011–2012) – the US remake of the British series (1991) – as “criminally old hat.”163 • The sitcom The Odd Couple (2015–2017) – the remake of the 1970–1975 series – as “unsettlingly old hat.”164

270 The fashionable remake • The period-drama Little Women (2018) as “more old-fashioned than the original.”165 • The horror film Suspiria (2018) “feels dispiritingly anonymous and indistinct, despite tantalising, fleeting flashes to the contrary, and a lit­ tle, well, old hat.”166 • In a review of Dumbo (2019) – the live-action remake of the 1941 anima­ tion – it is argued, “if you’re going to bring an old story into the lime­ light again and add new elements of your own, at least take some more liberties with the story and don’t feel so tied down to old-fashioned storytelling.”167 While these reviews, predictably, tend not to explain how or why such films are perceived as so old-fashioned, some assumptions can be drawn. Delamater, for example, identifies a range of reasons why filmmakers reproduce films, including striving for perfection, reinterpreting familiar material, or to “modify a particular performance to suit different times.”168 Lindner observes that “updating a story is a central characteristic of any remake or adaptation.”169 To not modify material to suit the times can, therefore, leave a remake open to being construed as anachronistic. (Although, on occasions such a description can be complimentary170 and in line with the nostalgic themes discussed in Chapter 3.) A range of remakes that eschew update through avoidance or ignorance of contemporary values also illus­ trate this point. The 1990 film Stella and its predecessors center on a working-class sin­ gle mother who eventually exits her daughter’s life so that her daughter can succeed socially. While this story potentially made sense in 1925 and 1937 – i.e., times with a heightened visibility of both American aristocracy and dire poverty – by 1990 the story seems to strain credulity: as literary scholar Jennifer Parchesky observes in her analysis: “by 1990, the populist affirmation of class mobility was so deeply ingrained that the film is hardpressed to provide a plausible motive for Stella’s [Bette Midler] sacrifice.”171 The 1990 Stella comes across as old-fashioned because it presents a plot that simply doesn’t make sense to contemporary audiences who likely struggled to understand why a woman in 1990s America would make such a sacrifice. The 1984 and 2011 Footloose presentations illustrate similar concerns. While in 1984 the idea of rock music being banned in a small town might have stretched the boundaries of credulity, by 2011 – in the era of the internet – the concept seemed completely ridiculous. Such ideas are indicative of a range of ways that remade material can be construed as anachronistic when thorough reimagining doesn’t occur. While eschewing update might be deliberate – for example as a means to present an old-fashioned, quaint narrative for nostalgic purposes – it can also be explained by factors includ­ ing production laziness. Discussed earlier in this chapter was films harnessing socio-political hap­ penings to deliver contemporary relevance to a remake. While this isn’t

The fashionable remake

271

always necessary, not doing so can prevent audiences from appropriately engaging with a new production. Steve Panzarella references such ideas in his analysis of the fantasy-romance Always (1989) – a remake of A Guy Named Joe (1943) – observing that updating the plot from “bomber pilots in WWII to daredevil forest-fire-fighting pilots in the Pacific Northwest in the late ’80s” in fact eliminated much of the tension: “Without that crucial war-time setting as backdrop, the romantic triangle between Richard Drey­ fuss, Holly Hunter, and Brad Johnson is nowhere near as urgent.”172 Mak­ ing such a plot change – alternatively, not concocting a new threat or a new sense of urgency that could speak to contemporary audiences – renders the material difficult to relate to. Lindner discusses something similar in his comparison of Planet of the Apes (2001) and its 1968 predecessor, observing: In contrast to the original film which appeared in a time of political ten­ sion and thus successfully incorporated the looming threat of nuclear war, Burton’s film, it can be argued, simply lacked a political context of comparable intensity and danger.173 While the 2001 film could still be enjoyed as a piece of sci-fi escapism, the earlier film was able to harness the energy around a genuine threat giving it contemporary salience, whereas the remake – released prior to 9/11 – simply didn’t offer audiences a metaphor potent enough for the times, hence its lackluster critical and box office performance. Falsetto presents a similar critique of the 1998 Psycho remake, observing that, “[Anthony] Perkins’s jit­ tery, nervous performance also evokes the sense of anxiety and instability of the late 1950s, as well as the personal crisis of identity of a gay man who was not out of the closet.”174 While the concept of “the closet” would, of course, have been familiar to late 1990s audiences, the cost to exposure at the end of the twentieth century simply wasn’t the same, and thus the threat of sexu­ ality exposure doesn’t provide the same level of anxiety decades on. Discussed earlier was the demise of the screwball comedy thus lead­ ing to such material being freshened through reproduction as a musical. There are, of course, examples of films that don’t observe genre trends and thus perform poorly with critics and at the box office: James Limbacher addresses this in his 1979 book on remakes observing, “often as not, a story which broke box office records in 1935 may prove completely out of touch with the times in 1955 or 1975, even though rewriting and updating are meticulously done.”175 Film writer John DiLeo discusses this as related to the screwball comedy My Man Godfrey (1957), the remake of the 1936 film: The impulse to remake screwball comedies was misguided. The genre was an outgrowth of the Depression, a format in which regular folks were able to laugh at the foibles of the rich, who often seemed clueless about the really important things. Audiences could feel better about their own fates while gorging on sumptuous production values.176

272 The fashionable remake Here, DiLeo makes the important point that the kinds of things that made people laugh during the Great Depression – particularly as related to quali­ ties like the “foibles of the rich” – isn’t so funny two decades on. (Arguably the lack of resonance contemporary audiences have with the Depression is also why the 2014 Annie remake moved the narrative from the Depres­ sion era, as in the previous incarnations, to modern day Harlem.) Film theorist Emanuel Levy similarly discusses the difficulty of translating the screwball comedy after the end of the genre’s heyday, something he relates to the aforementioned You’ve Got Mail (1998), which he criticizes as a “shal­ low remake of The Shop Around the Corner”: “Filmmakers seem unable to recognize that it’s hard to make screwball comedy in the 1990s, when the social norms and manners that gave rise to those cinematic conventions no longer exist.”177 While escapism will always be a motivation for media consumption, comedies of manners and social norms have become pro­ gressively less entertaining – and less relatable – over time, thus making unaltered reproductions a very risky endeavor. Kiang, Lyttelton and Perez address this issue in their article on autoremakes, referencing some of the challenges that Frank Capra had remaking his own Lady for a Day (1933) as Pocketful of Miracles (1961): As much as Capra wanted to hold on to the old values he’d so delight­ fully espoused many times before, you can practically feel the real world nipping at the heels of Miracles so that what works as escapist fantasy in Lady for a Day becomes twee, or maudlin, or otherwise out of touch in 1961.178 Escapism in entertainment media is often highly desirable, but complete suspension of disbelief is rarely achievable for audiences, particularly those more familiar with a different kind of media. Not only have screwball comedies waned in popularity, but so too have the “women’s picture” melodramas which peaked in popularity in the 1940s and 1950s. Remaking such a film in the decades after raises specific chal­ lenges and likely explains why the 1990 Stella did so poorly with critics – ditto the remakes of Beaches (1988/2017) and Steel Magnolias (1989/2012) – and more broadly hints to the generalized cynicism that took hold of audi­ ences from the 1990s onwards whereby melodramas became considered maudlin and old-fashioned. Richard Natale in The Los Angeles Times, for example, discusses Miracle on 34th Street (1994) – the remake of the 1947 and 1973 films – and draws on comments made by a film executive, suggest­ ing that the film failed at the box office “because of the tenor of the times, which seems to demand that sentimentality be leavened with an edge of healthy sarcasm.”179 He spotlights the success of a much more cynical film like The Santa Clause (1994) as doing a far better job of harnessing the spirit of the new audience.

The fashionable remake

273

Remakes can also fail when the new film doesn’t modernize the setting by bringing it into the contemporary era, something McBride addresses in his comparison of Lady for a Day and Pocketful of Miracles, noting that the latter failed because “it was a period piece, set in 1933, and thus emotion­ ally distant from its audience.”180 When audiences watched Lady for a Day in cinemas in 1933, they saw a contemporary comedy about the times they were living in. When audiences watched the reproduction in 1961, however, they weren’t seeing a contemporary comedy about their times, rather, they were failing to enjoy a comic period piece. The same issues are also related to audience expectations of modern language in contemporary media. In Chapter 5, for example, I discussed a range of teen-oriented Shakespeare reimaginings, the majority which – in acknowledgement of their target audience – eschewed Shakespearean English in favor of modern vernacu­ lar. This idea was also alluded to in a discussion of the made-for-television Double Indemnity (1973), the remake of the 1944 film-noir. Filmmaker Herb Ross, for example, speculates on why the 1973 film was so unpopular: Screenplays, especially those of the thirties and forties, have not dated as well as stage plays written during the same period. . . . A beautiful example – Double Indemnity 1944 – was a tremendous success when it was filmed in the forties. But, when it was redone for television some time back 1973, it was a flop and the reason was that they didn’t update the dialogue. Instead, they used the original script almost word for word.181 Matthew Gilbert in The Boston Globe points to another example of a film that, when remade, was incomprehensible by audiences decades on, notably as related to evolved social values. In his review of the made-for-television The Goodbye Girl (2004) – the remake of the 1977 – for example, Gilbert observes: The love story was cutesy and romantic when it first came out, but this time around it seems almost pathologically naive. The mother of a 10-year-old girl letting a strange man move into their New York apartment?182 While Gilbert’s point reflects heightened concerns around pedophilia in the 2000s – something I explore elsewhere in the context of the 1962 and 1997 adaptations of Lolita183 – other remakes exhibit ignorance towards the hap­ penings in broader society as related to sexual politics. In a review of the British drama Bouquet of Barbed Wire (2010) – a remake of the 1976 mini­ series – for example, Jon Wise comments that “the tale of a girl Prue (Imogen Poots) who gets pregnant by her teacher who she then marries may not be as salacious as it was in the 70s.”184 This is an interesting criticism of the 2010

274 The fashionable remake adaptation but also raises worthwhile issues should the production be remade again. The pendulum as related to politics and social mores is always swing­ ing: in a Trump-era, MeToo zeitgeist – where sexual politics is a topic of great relevance once again – if Bouquet were made again, arguably it might once again stir the kinds of controversy it did in the 1970s. Hutcheon, discussing the 2010 Bouquet remake, notes that “[r]eadiness to reception and to produc­ tion can depend on the ‘rightness’ of the historical moment.”185 Rightness, of course, is dependent on the reaction producers want from an audience; if controversy is sought, remaking a production during a time of heightened political sensitives might be desirable. In our modern call-out culture, how­ ever, such a property might be deemed too troublesome to tackle. (Rightness, of course, is also related to genre trends as discussed earlier in this chapter.) Language, social mores and gender relations are constantly evolving, and thus simply refilming an old script for a new audience – and ignoring everything that has transpired culturally in the intervening years – leaves a remake susceptible to being viewed as an anachronism. Throughout his­ tory, audiences have demonstrated a preference for contemporary stories about their lives and times. Remaking an old film without modernizing it can, in a best-case scenario, strike a nostalgic chord, but at worst it can risk being construed as an anachronism. This chapter reviewed the impact of fashion and trends – from genre to subject matter – that are used to update a remake and make it relevant to a new generation of viewers. Also explored were the idea of films avoiding making updates and thus being criticized as out of touch.

Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

In McIntosh, 2018. Rosewarne, 2016a, 81. Stenport and Traylor, 80. McDonald, 2015. “Millennials don’t really care about classic movies”, 2017. Ellis, 2015, 17. A study suggests that one in ten over-50s couldn’t remember if they had seen a film made after 2010; 8% in the study felt confident that they hadn’t seen anything made after 2010 (“Millennials don’t really care about classic movies”, 2017). Cabrita, 2015. In Francis Jr., 2013, 156. Falsetto, 2015, 43. Leitch, 2000, 272. Dalton, 2004. LaSalle, 2004. “The Italian Job”, 2003. Carr, 2006. “The Bionic Woman opens strong and sinks Sea Patrol finale”, 2007. Arnold, 2009. Schwartzkoff, 2010.

The fashionable remake 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59

275

Hewitt, 2011. McEwen, 2012. Owen, 2016. Macaulay, 2005. Tatspaugh, 2007; Davies, 2016. Lyons, 1996. Murray, 2018. Delamater, 1998, 80–81. While these are US examples and as identified this is also the common trajec­ tory for Bollywood films, other countries also remake films as musicals. Ani­ ceto (2008), for example, is an Argentinian musical-remake of the drama El romance del Aniceto y la Francisca (1967). The Spanish drama La hija de Juan Simón (Juan Simon’s Daughter) (1935) was remade as a musical in 1957. The Korean comedy-horror Choyonghan kajok (The Quiet Family) (1998) was remade as a comedy-musical in Japan: Katakuri-ke no kôfuku (The Happiness of the Katakuris) (2001). Wolf, 2002, 9. Nowlan and Wright Nowlan, 1989, 49. Kiang, Lyttelton and Perez, 2013. Zanger, 2006. Birchard, 2004, 248. In his work on DeMille, Frank Pittenger similarly observes that “The Ten Com­ mandments remake allowed DeMille’s entrepreneurial and filmmaking skills to meet with his religious agenda like never before” (Pittenger, 2011, 150). Birchard, 2004, 71. Lev, 2007, 199. Sanjek, 2001, 833. In Higashi, 1996, 101. Apostolos-Cappadona, 2009. In Malone, 2010, 5. Rosewarne, 2019a. Champoux, 1999, 210. Lavigne, 2014, 83. Lavigne, 2014, 84. Knöppler, 2017; Katovich and Kinkade, 1993, 621. Perkins and Verevis, 2015, 680. Johnson, 2009b. Corliss, 2005. Wildermuth, 2007, 121. Rosewarne, 2019a. Knöppler, 2017, 10. James Francis observes that “the ’90s were considered a time of limbo for hor­ ror” (Francis Jr., 2013, 136). Riegler, 2014, 108. Marc Sigoloff in the Illinois Times observes that an “unusually high number of horror films from the ’70s have been remade in recent years,” further fueling the idea that “Hollywood has run out of ideas” (Sigoloff, 2006). In Kit, 2010. In Kit, 2010. Riegler, 2014. In Riegler, 2014, 107. Loock, 2012, 122. Robinson, 2009, 39.

276 The fashionable remake 60 VanDerWerff, 2016. 61 Riegler, 2014. 62 Kevin Harvey argues that the ubiquitous presence of superheroes in film and television can be construed as referencing Christ: “Maybe our fascination with superheroes is because we are being drawn to something innate in us. A longing for something more. Something perfect. Something supernatural” (Harvey, 2015, 1). 63 Queenan, 2013. 64 Žižek, 2002, 16. 65 Stasia, 2014, 126. 66 Social critic Stuart Sim discusses the idea of “retro” as not just “a mere imita­ tion” but as often involving “an ironic attitude toward the earlier style” (Sim, 2001, 297). 67 Johnson, 2009b. 68 The red cloak imagery from the series was used in several real-life anti-Trump protests in the aftermath of the election, notably those pertaining to reproduc­ tive rights (see Hauser, 2017; Davy, 2018). 69 Charles, 2017. 70 Rosewarne, 2019a. 71 Scholz, 2017, 134. 72 Scholz, 2017, 134. 73 Rosewarne, 2018b. 74 Moore, 2016. 75 Robertson, 2018. 76 “Forgot About Summer School? Bummer! What About Nine More Eighties Com­ edies?” 2011. 77 Levy, 1999, 473. 78 James, 1995. 79 Pitts, 2017. 80 Bailey, 2010. 81 Zwolfe, 2012. 82 Duggan, 2016, 67. 83 Wilkinson, 2013. 84 Broderick, 2017. 85 Simon, 2017. 86 Rosewarne, 2019a. 87 Rosewarne, 2019a. 88 Sharp and Giuffre, 2013, 25. 89 Rosewarne, 2019a. 90 Eberwein, 1998, 30. 91 Rosewarne, 2019c. 92 Markert, 2013, 103. 93 Eagan, 2010, 671. 94 Schilling, 2018. 95 Schilling, 2018. 96 Schilling, 2018. 97 Schilling, 2018. 98 “Brad’s Week in Dork! (6/2/13–6/8/13)”, 2013. 99 Williams, 2002. 100 Schilling, 2018. 101 “Czterej bracia (Four Brothers)”, undated. 102 Pyke, 2013. 103 Rosewarne, 2019a.

The fashionable remake 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149

277

Hefner, 2012, 64. Hefner, 2012, 63. Hefner, 2012, 63. Martens, 2011, 217. Woods, 2005, 142. Andreeva, 2016. Goldberg, 2016. Fitch, 2009, 103. Verevis, 2006, 131. Lavigne, 2014, 88. In Francis Jr., 2013, 156. Campbell, 2010. Greven, 2016, 174. Knöppler, 2017, 227. Knöppler, 2017, 201. Packer, 2007, 83. Willmore, 2017. Shepherd, Undated. Knolle, 2015. McKenzie, 2011. Hoare, 2012. Brock, 2019. Whalen, 2018. “19 Remakes and Reboots Coming in 2019 That Actually Look Good”, 2019. Francis Jr., 2013. Hart, 2013, 87. Muir, 2007; Guerrero, 1990. Knöppler, 2017, 79. Dewan, 2000. Jensen, 2017. Lindner, 2015, 26. Lindner, 2015, 27. Butter, 2015, 44. Druxman, 1975, 15. Scheer, 1980, 30. Hutcheon and O’Flynn, 2013, 142. Knöppler, 2017, 113. Roman, 2009, 226. In Chattaway, 2008. “Still playing”, 2006. Rosewarne, 2019a. Murray and Heumann, 2009, 144. Francis Jr., 2013, 24. Scheer, 1980, 32. McBride, 2011, 317. This tweak can be likened to attempts made in other remakes to revisit and revise presentations that would be construed as racist by modern audiences. Discussing Lady and the Tramp (2019), for example – the remake of the 1955 animation – Stephen Humphries notes that the production “ditched ‘The Siamese Cat Song’ with its Asian stereotypes.” Further, he spotlights that the live-action Dumbo (2019) remake “omits the bird with stereotypical African American features who was named Jim Crow” (Humphries, 2019). 150 Francis Jr., 2013, 117.

278 The fashionable remake 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170

171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185

Rosewarne, 2019a. Johnson, 2009a. Mazdon, 2000, 2. Durham, 1998; Mazdon, 2000. Maltin, 2014. Connors and Craddock, 1999. Edelstein, 2004. Sarris, 2005. Simonpillai, 2011. Westbrook, 2000. Holmes, 2016. Lane, 2008. Hughes, 2012. Hewitson, 2015. Weitzman, 2018. Wetherall, 2018. Barta, 2019. Delamater, 1998, 80. Lindner, 2015, 26. The 2016 Pete’s Dragon – the remake of the 1977 film – was praised as being “a lovely, old-fashioned remake with a wonderful family friendly vibe” (Hickman, 2016). The live-action Cinderella (2015) – the remake of the 1950 animation – was similarly celebrated as a “charmingly old-fashioned remake” (“The 10 best new films and shows on Netflix UK, March 2017”, 2017). Parchesky, 2006, 193. Panzarella, 2009. Lindner, 2012, 127. In Falsetto, 2015, 46. Limbacher, 1979, viii. DiLeo, 2017. Levy, 1999, 249. Kiang, Lyttelton and Perez, 2013. Natale, 1994. McBride, 2011, 301. In Druxman, 1975, 24. Gilbert, 2004. Rosewarne, 2019a. Wise, 2010. Hutcheon and O’Flynn, 2013, 143.

Conclusion

The notion of repetition in popular culture is nothing new. Since the dawn of time, we’ve told the same stories over and over again, and with the advent of each new technology we’ve sought to adapt these stories into new for­ mats and for new audiences, from stage to the big screen to the small and often back again. Despite the prevalence of remakes on screen – and despite the fact that such reproductions are embedded into the fabric of popular culture, with certain remakes like the 1939 version of The Wizard of Oz (1925), the 1941 version of The Maltese Falcon (1931) and the 1983 version of Scarface (1932) in fact helping to constitute the American cinema canon – commonly, remakes are frowned upon. As discussed throughout this book, such pro­ ductions are frequently lamented as a certain “type” of film, considered as not only unoriginal but as lazy, uncreative and as cynically exploiting audiences by serving them “warmed over” fare. Hollywood has been remak­ ing on screen for over a century now, and yet critics and audiences still systematically condemn this material as though remade film and television is somehow a contemporary scourge, uniquely commercial and somehow more of a cash-grab than everything else made by big studios. Such ideas were the impetus for this project. If remakes are routinely criticized as cashgrabs and as uninspired, unnecessary, slavish, painful and insipid,1 why do they keep being made? Equally, if audiences hate them so very much, why do they keep paying to see them, in turn guaranteeing further reproduc­ tion? This book has answered these questions by proposing six explanations for remaking, examining the political, economic and emotional underpin­ nings to their production. Hollywood studios produce films and television shows to make money. Yes, such material can serve other functions – such media can be entertain­ ing, creative, inspiring, propagandist etc. – but ultimately it’s commercial. Studios make what sells. And remakes dominate in multiplexes and on tel­ evision because audiences continue to pay to see such content. Until this dynamic alters, remake production will continue, regardless of claims that we’ve had enough.

280 Conclusion As I finished the first draft of this book I was living in Middletown, Con­ necticut. In the third week of June, 2019 – the first week of Summer – the offerings at my local cinema, Metro Movies 12, were as follows: • • • • • • • • • • • •

Aladdin Anna Annabelle Comes Home Child’s Play Dark Phoenix Godzilla II: King of the Monsters Late Night Men in Black: International Rocketman Shaft The Secret Life of Pets 2 Toy Story 4

Of the 12 films showing, only the thriller Anna, the comedy Late Night and the biopic Rocketman could be considered as wholly new stories. Everything else on the list was a remake (Aladdin, Child’s Play, Shaft), a sequel (Anna­ belle Comes Home, Godzilla II, The Secret Life of Pets 2, Toy Story 4) or a fran­ chise expansion (Men in Black, Dark Phoenix). I was not the only person who noticed the theme of repetition in these offerings. That same week two memes – an English version and one in Spanish – appeared in my Facebook feed. The image was of a marquee outside of a nondescript multiplex, list­ ing the offerings: • • • • •

Toy Story Men in Black Godzilla Aladdin Child’s Play

The photo was captioned: “The photo was NOT taken in the 90s.” The point made in the meme is that the 2019 Summer line-up flaunted a dis­ tinct nostalgia for the late 1980s and 1990s and was offering some very obvi­ ous callbacks to the decades-old film productions of Child’s Play (1988), Aladdin (1992), Toy Story (1995), Men in Black (1997) and Godzilla (1998). Apparent in these memes and in the offerings at Metro Movies 12 that week in June was that the big studios had looked over their shoulders to the cin­ ema of the past to inspire their Summer blockbusters. Studios were operat­ ing on the assumption that the adults of 2019 – some of who were children in the 1990s – could be lured back to the cinema for a chance to revisit their past and that, perhaps, those adults might even take their own children along too.

Conclusion 281 Audiences pay to see remakes, studio production decisions are validated through box office revenue and the cycle begins again. All films – even the patently commercial entities such as those released at the height of Summer to take advantage of an audience seeking rec­ reation and air-conditioned escapism – don’t exist in a vacuum and thus, while making a profit is important and while taking audiences back to their childhoods is seductive, such material is also reproduced for other reasons. Remaking to produce a better film, to expand a catalogue, to Americanize foreign content, to be creative and fashionable are also key drivers. While Hollywood, of course, is an industry preoccupied with what sells, audiences won’t pay for just anything put before them. The remakes that work – that get healthy box offices and high ratings, if not always glowing reviews – are ones cognizant of not only the longing that audiences have for their pop culture pasts but also their yens for newness, freshness, their love of celeb­ rity, their appreciation for whizz bang technology and their fondness for well-told stories, even if they’re not totally “original.” The scholarly exercise of understanding the why of such a consist­ ently maligned production category was the impetus for this project, but throughout the research and writing – and in reading the endless stream of remake announcements and mooted projects reported on throughout this time – the necessity of this research was demonstrated time and time again. Not only do studios show no signs of abandoning their commitment to remaking, but as production costs rise and studios become even more risk-averse, reproduction – be it through remakes or sequels and franchise expansions – is a foregone conclusion. Studios will keep producing these films, and audiences will probably keep watching them. Understanding this cycle and the negative discourse underpinning it is crucial in fully compre­ hending today’s pop culture landscape and the cultural chatter that exists around it. This book is a continuation of my work on the intersection between popular culture, politics and society and, more recently, my interest in understanding the motivations propelling repetition in Hollywood and the machinations of global media manufacturing.

Note 1 Rosewarne, 2019a, 8.

Bibliography

Abarca, Justin. 2014. “17 Movies You Probably Didn’t Know Were Remakes”. BuzzFeed, July 23. Accessed August 7, 2019 from www.buzzfeed.com/justinabarca/ movies-you-didnt-know-were-remakes. Abrams, Simon. 2011. “Good Enough for Hitchcock: A Side-by-Side Case for Remakes”. Politico, March 18. Accessed March 26, 2018 from www.politico. com/states/new-york/albany/story/2011/03/good-enough-for-hitchcock-a­ side-by-side-case-for-remakes-067223. Accomando, Beth. 2017. “ ‘Ghost in The Shell’ Remake Is Visually Stunning But Dumbed Down”. KPBS, March 30. Accessed February 12, 2019 from www.kpbs. org/news/2017/mar/30/ghost-shell-remake-visually-stunning-dumbed-down/. Acuna, Kirsten. 2013. “10 Movie Remakes That Are Better Than the Original”. Busi­ ness Insider, October 29. Accessed November 23, 2018 from https:// www.businessin sider.com.au/10-movie-remakes-better-than-the-original- 2013–10?r=US&IR=T. Adams, Mark. 2006. “At the Movies: Happy Horror Days”. Sunday Mirror, Decem­ ber 10. Accessed September 13, 2017 from Lexis Nexis. “ ‘Affairs’ of the Heart”. 2014. The Pantagraph, February 7. Accessed June 19, 2018 from www.pantagraph.com/affairs-of-the-heart/image_0999c92a-6097-514b­ a8e2-c2f0a320837e.html. Aglionby, John. 1999. “Thai Censors Ban ‘insulting’ Remake of King and I Film”. The Guardian, December 29. Accessed July 31, 2019 from www.theguardian.com/ film/1999/dec/29/world.news. Aguilar, Melissa Ward. 1998. “Double the Fun”. Houston Chronicle, July 29. Accessed June 19, 2018 from NewsBank. “Alan Frank’s DVD Slot”. 2006. Daily Star, October 20. Accessed March 31, 2018 from NewsBank. “ ‘Alfie’ Remake Lacking; ‘Incredibles’ Soars; DVD Review”. 2005. Lubbock Avalanche Journal, April 15. Accessed April 1, 2018 from NewsBank. “All the King’s Men”. Undated. Bomb Report. Accessed July 12, 2018 from https:// bombreport.com/yearly-breakdowns/2006-3/all-the-kings-men/. “ ‘All the King’s Men’ Tops List of Hollywood’s Biggest Flops”. 2010. The Wrap, January 22. Accessed July 12, 2018 from www.thewrap.com/all-kings-men-tops­ list-hollywoods-biggest-flops-13414/. “Also Released”. 2012. The Daily Telegraph, June 1. Accessed May 5, 2018 from NewsBank. Altmann, Alana. 2018. “Who Is Lady Gaga’s ‘A Star Is Born’ Character Based on? Here’s the Story Behind Ally”. Elite Daily, October 6. Accessed August 8, 2019

Bibliography

283

from www.elitedaily.com/p/who-is-lady-gagas-a-star-is-born-character-based-on­ heres-the-story-behind-ally-12168532. “American Audiences Are Unsophisticated, Director Says”. 1993. Deseret News, April 19. Accessed February 15, 2019 from www.deseretnews.com/article/286332/ american-audiences-are-unsophisticated-director-says.html. “And They Call It Muppet Love . . .: A Clever Plot and Great Songs Ensure Kermit and Miss Piggy Are as Captivating as Ever”. 2012. The Observer, June 10. Accessed February 23, 2019 from Factiva. Anderson, Dianna E. 2018. Problematic: How Toxic Callout Culture Is Destroying Femi­ nism. Lincoln, NE: Potomac Books. Anderson, John. 2008. “ ‘Funny Games’: Deadly Serious; Haneke Punctures Bour­ geois Pretensions in Disturbing Film”. The Washington Post, March 14. Accessed March 3, 2019 from Factiva. Anderson, Joseph L. 1962. “When the Twain Meet: Hollywood’s Remake of ‘The Seven Samurai’ ”. Film Quarterly, 15, 3, 55–58. Andreeva, Nellie. 2016. “Netflix Orders ‘One Day At A Time’ Latino Remake Series Co-Starring Rita Moreno”. Deadline Hollywood, January 11. Accessed March 18, 2018 from http://deadline.com/2016/01/one-day-at-a-time-latino­ remake-series-rita-moreno-netflix-1201680752/. Andreeva, Nellie. 2019. “ ‘Mad About You’: John Pankow & Richard Kind to Reprise Roles in Revival Limited Series for Spectrum Originals”. Deadline Hollywood, August 26. Accessed August 27, 2019 from https://deadline.com/2019/08/ mad-about-you-john-pankow-richard-kind-to-reprise-roles-revival-limited-series­ spectrum-originals-1202704341/. Anthony, Todd. 1998. “It’s No Better Mouse Trap; Disney’s Uninspired Remake Loses Charm of the Original”. Sun-Sentinel, July 29. Accessed March 31, 2018 from NewsBank. Apostolos-Cappadona, Diane. 2009. “Review of Hallbäck and Hvithamar’s ‘The Bible in Contemporary Cinema’ ”. Society of Biblical Literature, October 25. Accessed March 1, 2019 from www.bookreviews.org/pdf/6928_7507.pdf. Ariano, Tara J., Kelly Nestruck and Chris Knight. 2005. “Year of the Concoctapa­ looza”. National Post, May 27. Accessed February 25, 2019 from Factiva. Armstrong, Jennifer Keishin. 2017. “The Joy of Hate-Watching”. BBC, June 26. Accessed July12, 2018 from www.bbc.com/culture/story/20170616-the-joy-of-hate­ watching. Armstrong, Rick. 2011. “Introduction: ‘Diving Off the Deep End’ ”. Robert Altman: Critical Essays. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co, 1–16. Arnold, Gary. 1997. “ ‘Darn Cat’ Meows on”. The Washington Times, February 14. Accessed July 19, 2018 from NewsBank. Arnold, Nathanael. 2017. “8 Great Foreign Films Remade Into American Movie Flops”. Cheatsheet, August 13. Accessed September 6, 2017 from www.cheat sheet.com/entertainment/8-great-foreign-films-remade-into-american-flops. html/. Arnold, Thomas K. 2009. “The Hollywood Reporter; ‘Dark Knight’ Tops Video Sales Chart”. VNU Entertainment Newswire, January 2. Accessed March 9, 2019 from Factiva. Arnold, William. 2002. “Mr. Deeds: The Remake of Frank Capra’s Gem Gets Roughed Up by Comedian Adam Sandler”. El Sentinel, July 6. Accessed March 10, 2018 from News Bank.

284 Bibliography Aronson, Alex. 2019. “The 50 Best Movie Remakes = of All Time”. Redbook, July 19. Accessed July 29, 2019 from www.redbookmag.com/life/g28379675/best-movie­ remakes/. “At the Movies”. 2010. Montreal Gazette, March 5. Accessed February 27, 2019 from Factiva. Atchison, Molly. 2018. “ ‘A Star is Born’ Is Music for the Soul”. UWire, October 24. Accessed February 28, 2019 from Factiva. Aufderheide, Patricia. 1998. “Made in Hong Kong: Translation and Transmutation”. In Play It Again, Sam: Retakes on Remakes. Edited by Andrew Horton and Stuart Y. McDougal. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 191–199. Backer, Ron. 2012. Mystery Movie Series of 1930s Hollywood. Jefferson, NC: McFar­ land & Co. Badmington, Neil. 2001. “Pod Almighty, or Humanism, Posthumanism, and the Strange Case of Invasion of the Body Snatchers”. Textual Practice, 15, 1, 5–22. Bailey, Jason. 2010. “Today’s New DVDs”. JasonBailey.com, July 13. Accessed Septem­ ber 13, 2017 from www.jason-bailey.com/2010_07_11_archive.html. Bailey, John. 2017. “If the Reboot Fits, Can You Wear It Out?” The Sydney Morn­ ing Herald, April 25. Accessed January 22, 2019 from www.smh.com.au/entertain ment/m29cover-20170324-gv5lpu.html. Bannon, Aoife. 2011. “Kristen Is Just White for Snow Film Role”. The Sun, Janu­ ary 28. Accessed June 13, 2018 from NewsBank. Barber, Lynden. 2010. “Is Hollywood Creatively Bankrupt?” ABC News, September 29. Accessed February 19, 2019 from www.abc.net.au/news/2010-02-26/33046. Barbuto, Dana. 2009. “ ‘Fame’ Remake a Mere Shadow of the Original”. Patriot Ledger, September 25. Accessed March 10, 2018 from www.patriotledger.com/ x576521657/MOVIE-REVIEW-Fame-remake-a-mere-shadow-of-the-original. Barclay, Kirsty. 2001. “Movie Watch”. South China Morning Post, December 6. Accessed June 12, 2018 from NewsBank. Barlaam, Silvia. 2011. “ ‘There’s Nowt as Queer as Folk’: British and American Tel­ evisual Approaches to the Politics of Homosexuality”. In American Remakes of Brit­ ish Television: Transformations and Mistranslations. Edited by Carlen Lavigne and Heather Marcovitch. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 117–142. Barnes, Alan. 2011. Sherlock Holmes on Screen: The Complete Film and TV History. Lon­ don: Titan Books. Barnes, Brooks. 2015. “ ‘Tomorrowland’ Is a Box-Office Disappointment”. The New York Times, May 25. Accessed March 2, 2019 from Factiva. Barsanti, Chris. 2018. “The Best Movies of 2017”. Medium, January 1. Accessed February 22, 2019 from https://medium.com/eyes-wide-open/the-best-movies­ of-2017-bbc61bcbe0f3. Barta, Preston. 2019. “ ‘Dumbo’ Remake Doesn’t Reach Heights of Original”. Denton Record-Chronicle, March 26. Accessed July 11, 2019 from https://dentonrc. com/entertainment/movies/dumbo-remake-doesn-t-reach-heights-of-original/ article_fbe25cb1-9b76-54c2-b989–17d5547342fe.html. Bass, Patrik Henry. 2018. “The Beautiful Struggle: Black Women and the Academy Awards”. Essence: Black Women in Hollywood: A Salute to Trailblazers at the Oscars, February 16, 6–8. “Be Prepared for Inferior Take on Disney Classic”. 2019. Stirling Observer. Accessed July 28, 2019 from Factiva.

Bibliography

285

Beale, Lewis. 1998. “Remake Believe Hollywood’s Rush of Revivals Will Give Filmgo­ ers a Feeling of Deja View”. New York Daily News, August 3. Accessed February 25, 2019 from Factiva. Beauvoir, Jeff. 2011. “6 Classic Movies You Didn’t Know Were Remakes”. Cracked, May 15. Accessed August 6, 2019 from, www.cracked.com/article_19190_6-classic­ movies-you-didnt-know-were-remakes.html. Beck, J. Spencer. 1993. The Variety History of Show Business. New York: Abrams. Beck, Marilyn. 1996. “ ‘Quieter, scarier’ Remake of ‘Shining’ Pleases King”. Rocky Mountain News. September 14. Accessed March 31, 2018 from NewsBank. Beeden, Alexandra and Joost de Bruin. 2010. “The Office: Articulations of National Identity in Television Format Adaptations”. Television and News Media, 11, 3, 3–19. Belcher, Walt. 2002. “Filmmakers Should Have Used Their Psychic Powers On ‘Car­ rie’ Remake”. The Tampa Tribune, November 4. Accessed March 4, 2018 from NewsBank. Bell, David. 2019. “Ranking the 30 Best Movie Remakes of All Time”. Collider, April 18. Accessed July 29, 2019 from http://collider.com/galleries/ranked­ best-movie-remakes/. Bellamy, Chris. 2005. “Though Amusing, ‘Bears’ Remake Lacks Originality”. Daily Utah Chronicle, July 25. Accessed April 8, 2018 from NewsBank. “Ben-Hur Is Back”. 2016. The Telegraph, August 19. Accessed February 27, 2019 from Factiva. Bennett, Dan. 2009. “Legendary Horror Film Gets Mediocre Remake”. North County Times, February 11. Accessed March 25, 2018 from NewsBank. Bennett, Marie. 2014. “Does the Song Really Remain the Same? ‘The Windmills of Your Mind’ as Narrational Vehicle in The Thomas Crown Affair (1968 and 1999)”. The Soundtrack, 7, 2, 79–88. Berton, Paul. 1997. “Everything Old Is . . . Still Old”. The London Free Press, Febru­ ary 21. Accessed April 8, 2018 from NewsBank. Bevan, Alex. 2013. “Archiving the Digital Transition in the Boomer TV Sitcom Remake”. Adaptation, 6, 3, 305–319. Biancolli, Amy. 2010. “Seriously, Remakes Are Nothing New”. TimesUnion, June 12. Access February 19, 2019 from www.timesunion.com/news/article/Seriously­ remakes-are-nothing-new-559003.php. Bickford, James. 2016. “The Magnificent Failure: Hollywood Cranks Out Yet Another Terrible Remake”. UWire, September 30. Accessed February 28, 2019 from Factiva. Biguenet, John. 1998. “Double Takes: The Role of Allusion in Cinema”. In Play It Again, Sam: Retakes on Remakes. Edited by Andrew Horton and Stuart Y. McDougal. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 131–146. “The Bionic Woman Opens Strong and Sinks Sea Patrol Finale”. 2007. Australian Associated Press, October 5. Accessed March 8, 2019 from Factiva. Birchard, Robert S. 2004. Cecil B. DeMille’s Hollywood. Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky. Blackstock, Russell. 2016. “Kids’ Show Too Dark for Younger Children”. The New Zealand Herald, June 19. Accessed March 2, 2019 from Factiva. Blair, Andrew. 2014. “10 Movies Hollywood Shouldn’t Remake But Probably Will”. Den of Geek! January 20. Accessed March 5, 2018 from www.denofgeek.com/movies/ remakes/28898/10-movies-hollywood-shouldnt-remake-but-probably-will.

286 Bibliography Blaustein, David. 2015. “ ‘Poltergeist’ Movie Review”. ABC News, May 22. Accessed August 6, 2019 from https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/poltergeist-movie­ review/story?id=31241365. “Boaz Davidson: The Last American Virgin”. 2015. Peekaboo Music Magazine, Janu­ ary 20. Accessed September 12, 2017 from www.peek-a-boo-magazine.be/en/ reviews/boaz-davidson-the-last-american-virgin/. Boboltz, Sara. 2017. “Sorry, Hollywood’s Reboot Trend Is Taking Over Your TV”. Huffington Post, September 8. Accessed February 14, 2019 from www.huffington post.com/entry/fall-tv-revivals-and-reboots_us_59aed813e4b0354e440cec3f. Bohnenkamp, Björn, Ann-Kristin Knapp, Thorsten Hennig-Thurau and Ricarda Schauerte. 2015. “When Does It Make Sense to Do It Again? An Empirical Inves­ tigation of Contingency Factors of Movie Remakes”. Journal of Cultural Economics, 39, 1, 14–41. Bojalad, Alec. 2017. “Stranger Things: In Defense of Nostalgia”. Den of Geek! November 2. Accessed February 3, 2019 from www.denofgeek.com/us/tv/stranger-things/ 268649/stranger-things-in-defense-of-nostalgia. Boland, Michaela. 2018. “Hollywood Given $140m Incentive to Shoot Blockbusters in Australia”. ABC News, May 5. Accessed February 10, 2019 from www.abc.net. au/news/2018-05-04/foreign-filmmakers-will-get-140m-boost-to-australian­ production/9726798. Bondanella, Peter E. 2004. Hollywood Italians: Dagos, Palookas, Romeos, Wise Guys, and Sopranos. New York: Continuum. Booker, M. Keith. 2007. Postmodern Hollywood: What’s New in Film and Why it Makes Us Feel So Strange. Westport, CT: Praeger. Booth, Philip. 2005. “Another Remake! The Horror! The Horror!” Herald Tribune, April 15. Accessed June 19, 2018 from www.heraldtribune.com/news/20050415/ another-remake-the-horror-the-horror. Boym, Svetlana. 2001. The Future of Nostalgia. New York: Basic Books. “Brad’s Week in Dork! (6/2/13–6/8/13)”. 2013. In the Mouth of Dorkness, June 11. Accessed September 24, 2017 from http://inthemouthofdorkness.blogspot.com. au/2013/06/brads-week-in-dork-6213-6813.html. Bradshaw, Peter. 2014. “We Are What We Are Review – ‘Reduces the Original to Ordinary Genre Horror’ ”. The Guardian, February 28. Accessed March 10, 2018 from www.theguardian.com/film/2014/feb/27/we-are-what-we-are-review. Bradshaw, Peter. 2016. “Secret in Their Eyes Review – Flashback Thriller Remade with Diminished Returns”. The Guardian. February 26. Accessed March 28, 2018 from www.theguardian.com/film/2016/feb/25/secret-in-their-eyes-review-flashback­ thriller-remade-with-diminished-returns. Brady, Tara. 2016. “Into the Wild”. The Irish Times, August 5. Accessed February 27, 2019 from Factiva. Bramesco, Charles. 2016. “ ‘Ghostbusters’ to ‘Splash’: Why Gender-Flipping Is the New Gritty Reboot”.Rolling Stone, August2. Accessed April17, 2018 from www.rollingstone. com/movies/features/gender-flipping-movies-the-new-gritty-reboot-w432125. Bramesco, Charles. 2019. “Lost in Translation: Why Hollywood Can’t Stop Remaking Foreign Films”. The Guardian, January 11. Accessed February 11, 2019 from www. theguardian.com/film/2019/jan/11/the-upside-miss-bala-remakes-hollywood­ foreign-films. Braudy, Leo. 1998. “Afterword: Rethinking Remakes”. In Play It Again, Sam: Retakes on Remakes. Edited by Andrew Horton and Stuart Y. McDougal. Berkeley, CA: Uni­ versity of California Press, 327–334.

Bibliography

287

Braun, Liz. 2015. “You’ll Wish You Weren’t There”. St. Thomas Times-Journal, May 23. Accessed March 4, 2018 from NewsBank. Bray, Elisa. 2010. “Movie Remakes: Lost in Translation”. The Independent, July 21. Accessed June 11, 2018 from www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/ features/movie-remakes-lost-in-translation-2031141.html. Brayson, Johnny. 2016. “No, ‘Ghostbusters’ Didn’t Ruin My Childhood”. Bustle, July 19. Accessed January 22, 2019 from www.bustle.com/articles/173289-no­ ghostbusters-didnt-ruin-my-childhood. Breslow, Andy. 2008. “ ‘Quarantine’; Remake Sticks to Story But Adds Twist”. Rock­ ford Register Star, October 16. Accessed April 8, 2018 from NewsBank. Briggs, Joe Bob, 2018. “It’s 5 a.m. for Burt Reynolds”. Taki’s Magazine, September 14. Accessed July28, 2019 from www.takimag.com/article/its-5-a-m-for-burt-reynolds/. Brinsford, James. 2018. “Dumbo Trailer Gives First Look at Live-Action Remake Starring Michael Keaton and Danny DeVito”. Mirror, November 15. Accessed Feb­ ruary 28, 2019 from Factiva. Brock, Fionda Williams. 2019. “ ‘Pet Sematary’ Remake More Psychological Thriller Than Horror”. Daily Miner, April 7. Accessed July 11, 2019 from https://kdminer. com/news/2019/apr/07/pet-sematary-remake-more-psychological-thriller-ho/. Brode, Douglas. 2012. “ ‘Cowboys in Space’: Star Wars and the Western Film”. In Myth, Media, and Culture in Star Wars: An Anthology. Edited by Douglas Brode and Leah Deyneka. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 1–12. Broderick, Sian. 2017. “This New Film Starring Scarlett Johansson is Basically the Female Version of the Hangover”. Pretty 52, March 9. Accessed October 25, 2017 from www.pretty52.com/entertaining/tv-and-film-this-film-is-basically-the-female­ version-of-the-hangover-20170309. Brooker, Will. 2004. Alice’s Adventures: Lewis Carroll in Popular Culture. New York: Continuum. Brown, Len. 2011. Jason Statham: Taking Stock. London: Orion. “Brown Likes Outwitting the Bad Guys”. 1991. The Pantagraph, May 30. Accessed February 25, 2019 from Factiva. “Bruce Campbell, Fede Alvarez Talk Up ‘Very Scary’ Remake of ‘Evil Dead’ ”. 2013. Business Mirror, April 13. Accessed March 31, 2018 from NewsBank. Bruce, Justin. 2018. “15 Worst Hollywood Remakes of Foreign Films”. ScreenRant, January 24. Accessed February 12, 2019 from https://screenrant.com/ worst-hollywood-remakes-foreign-films-american-version/. Brustein, Robert. 1975. “The Retread Culture”. The New York Times, October 26. Accessed April12, 2018 from www.nytimes.com/1975/10/26/archives/the-retread­ culture-it-makes-plays-of-books-and-movies-of-plays-and.html. Bui, Hoai-Tran. 2016. “All the Times Paul Feig Was Forced to Defend ‘Ghostbusters’ ”. USA Today, June 6. Accessed January 22, 2019 from www.usatoday.com/story/life/ entertainthis/2016/06/06/all-times-paul-feig-forced-defend-ghostbusters/ 85521268/. Bui, Hoai-Tran. 2018. “ ‘Your Name’ U.S. Remake Will be ‘Through the Lens of a Western Viewpoint’ ”. SlashFilm, December 28. Accessed February 11, 2019 from www.slashfilm.com/your-name-remake-americanized/. Bullock, Saxon. 2012. “Take Two – The Art of Movie Remakes”. SaxonBullock.com, October 31. Accessed September 13, 2017 from www.saxonbullock.com/2012/10/ take-two-the-art-of-movie-remakes-2004/. Burton, Bonnie. 2015. “Why Does Hollywood Keep Churning Out Remakes? Some Ideas”. Cnet, June 15. Accessed February 19, 2019 from www.cnet.com/news/ pbs-idea-channel-explores-why-hollywood-keeps-remaking-movies/.

288 Bibliography Bussey, Ben. 2015. “Universal Reviving the Wolf Man In 2018”. Yahoo! Movies, Decem­ ber 5. Accessed March 30, 2018 from https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/universal­ reviving-the-wolf-man-in-2018-105850129.html. Butler, Isaac. 2014. “The Tragedie of Scar, King of Pride Rock”. Slate, June 12. Accessed July 11, 2019 from https://slate.com/culture/2014/06/the-lion­ king-20th-anniversary-scar-is-a-great-shakespearean-villain.html. Butter, Michael. 2015. “Exit Gender, Enter Race: Jonathan Demme’s ‘Update’ of The Manchurian Candidate”. In Remakes and Remaking: Concepts – Media – Practices. Edited by Rüdiger Heinze and Lucia Krämer. Bielefeld: Verlag, 41–56. Byrnes, Paul. 2011. “True Grit”. The Sydney Morning Herald, January 22. Accessed August 11, 2019 from www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/true-grit­ 20110121-19yhg.html. Cabrita, Josh. 2015. “Cinephilia: The Secret in Their Eyes Proves Remakes Aren’t Easy”. The Peak, November 16. Accessed June 11, 2018 from https://the-peak. ca/2015/11/cinephilia-the-secret-in-their-eyes-proves-remakes-arent-easy/. Cameron, Kenneth M. 1997. America on Film: Hollywood and American History. New York: Continuum. Cameron-Wilson, James and F. Maurice Speed. 1995. Film Review 1995–6: Including Video Releases. London: Virgin Books. Campbell, Christopher. 2010. “10 Bad Horror Movies to Remake in 3D”. IndieWire, August 20. Accessed July 11, 2019 from www.indiewire.com/2010/08/10-bad­ horror-movies-to-remake-in-3d-227197/. Campbell, Christopher. 2015. “9 Great Remake Cameos from the Original Movie’s Stars”. Film School Rejects, September 22. Accessed March 15, 2018 from https://filmschool­ rejects.com/9-great-remake-cameos-from-the-original-movies-stars-357a86b4eaf/. Canby, Vincent. 1985. “Film View”. The New York Times, November 17. Accessed Feb­ ruary 27, 2019 from Factiva. Canet, Fernando. 2018. “Schizophrenic Twins: A Comparative Study of Hitchcock’s Psycho (1960) and Van Sant’s 1998 Remake”. Journal of Film and Video 70, 1, 17–31. Carnevale, Rob. 2003. “The Ring”. Greater London, Kent, and Surrey Counties Publica­ tions. February 17. Accessed March 31, 2018 from NewsBank. Carpenter, Cassie. 2018. “Robert Zemeckis in ‘final negotiations’ to Direct ‘darker’ Remake of Roald Dahl’s The Witches”. Daily Mail, June 20. Accessed August 8, 2019 from www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5866285/Robert-Zemeckis­ final-negotiations-direct-darker-remake-Roald-Dahls-Witches.html. Carr, Simon. 2006. “Kong Rules”. Newsquest Group Newspapers, April 19. Accessed March 8, 2019 from Factiva. Carson, Alex. 2009. “Are American Audiences Really Stupid?” Film Misery, August 11. Accessed February 15, 2019 from www.filmmisery.com/are-american-audiences­ really-stupid/. Cartelli, Thomas and Katherine Rowe. 2007. New Wave Shakespeare on Screen. Cam­ bridge: Polity. Carter, Richard. 2003. “Movie Remakes Are Tiresome and Insult the Intelligence”. New York Amsterdam News, February 6. Accessed March 31, 2018 from Academic Search Complete. Cartmell, Deborah. 2000. Interpreting Shakespeare on Screen. London: Macmillan Press. Cartmell, Deborah. 2010. Screen Adaptations: Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice: The Relationship Between Text and Film. London: Methuen Drama.

Bibliography

289

Casciato, Cory. 2014. “The Fly and Four More Horror Film Remakes That Don’t Suck”. Westword, October 7. Accessed August 11, 2019 from www.westword.com/ arts/the-fly-and-four-more-horror-film-remakes-that-dont-suck-6049899. Champoux, Joseph E. 1999. “Film Remakes as a Comparative View of Time”. Educa­ tional Media International, 36, 3, 210–217. Chan, Boon. 2017. “New Crop of Revivals and Reboots in TV land”. The Straits Times, October 11. Accessed February 25, 2019 from Factiva. Chan, Kenneth. 2009. Remade in Hollywood: The Global Chinese Presence in Transna­ tional Cinema. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Chandler, Abigail. 2016. “Why Hollywood’s All-Female Movie Remakes Aren’t Doing Women Any Favours”. Metro, August 11. Accessed February 23, 2019 from https://metro.co.uk/2016/08/11/why-hollywoods-all-female-movie-remakes­ arent-doing-women-any-favours-6061647/. Chandler, Tim and Mike Cronin. 2002. Sport and Physical Education: The Key Concepts. London: Routledge. Chaney, Jen, Hunter Harris and Gazelle Emami. 2017. “The Highs and Lows of Dirty Dancing”. Vulture, May 24. Accessed September 5, 2017 from www.vulture. com/2017/05/dirty-dancing-highs-and-lows.html. Chapman, James. 2003. Cinemas of the World: Film and Society from 1895 to the Present. London: Reaktion Books. Chapman, James. 2006. Inside the Tardis: The Worlds of Doctor Who. London: I.B. Tauris. Chapman, James. 2014. Past and Present: National Identity and the British Historical Film. London: I.B. Tauris. Charles, Baptiste. 2017. “Trends in Filmmaking You Need to Know in 2018”. Raindance, December 22. Accessed March 10, 2019 from www.raindance.org/trends­ filmmaking-need-know-2018/. Chase, Dustin. “The Intouchables”. Texas Art & Film, January 11, 2019. Accessed February 12, 2019 from www.texasartfilm.net/the-upside/. Chattaway, Peter. 2008. “The Day the Earth Stood Green”. Patheos, March 21. Accessed March 12, 2019 from www.patheos.com/blogs/filmchat/2008/03/the­ day-the-earth-stood-green.html. Cheshire, Godfrey. 1998. “Psycho – ‘Psycho’ Analysis: Van Sant’s Remake Slavish But Sluggish”. Variety, December 6. Accessed April 21, 2018 from http://variety.com/ 1998/film/reviews/psycho-psycho-analysis-van-sant-s-remake-slavish-but­ sluggish-1200456298/. Chess, Shira. 2008. “The C-Word: Queering the Cylons”. In Battlestar Galactica and Philosophy: Mission Accomplished or Mission Frakked Up? Edited by Josef Steiff and Tristan Tamplin. Chicago, IL: Open Court, 87–94. Chester, Rodney. 1999. “Martian Remake More Rip Off Than Blast Off”. The Courier Mail, July 1. Accessed March 31, 2018 from NewsBank. Child, Ben. 2016. “Don’t Call It a Reboot: How ‘Remake’ Became a Dirty Word in Hollywood”. The Guardian, August 24. Accessed April 14, 2018 from www.the­ guardian.com/film/2016/aug/24/film-industry-remakes-hollywood-movies. Chuba, Kristen. 2018. “Jason Momoa’s ‘The Crow’ Remake Gets 2019 Release Date”. Variety, March 2. Accessed August 27, 2019 from https://variety.com/2018/film/ news/the-crow-release-date-2019-jason-momoa-1202715956/. Clifford, Terry. 1998. “Bumbled Remake of ‘Suspicion’ a Crime”. Chicago Tribune, April 20. Accessed March 27, 2018 from NewsBank.

290 Bibliography Cling, Carol. 1991. “Something for Everyone in Summer Movie Lineup”. The Las Vegas Review-Journal, May 19. Accessed July 31, 2019 from Factiva. Clover, Carol. 1992. Men, Women & Chain Saws: Gender in the Modern Horror Film. London: British Film Institute. Coffey, Padraic. 2019. “The Top Five Needless PG-13 Remakes”. HeadStuff, Febru­ ary 26. Accessed August 6, 2019 from www.headstuff.org/entertainment/film/ top-five-needless-pg-13-remakes/. Cohen, Anne. 2018. “Women Are Crushing the Halloween Box Office – But There’s ACatch”. Refinery29, October31. Accessed August7, 2019 from www.refinery29.com/ en-us/2018/10/215404/halloween-movies-box-office-records-october-2018. Cohen, Eric. 2016. “10 Remakes That Are Just as Good as the Originals”. Adorama Learning Centre, August 2. Accessed February 22, 2018 from www.adorama.com/ alc/10-remakes-that-are-just-as-good-as-the-originals. Coleman, Robin R. Means. 2011. Horror Noire: Blacks in American Horror Films from the 1890s to Present. New York: Routledge. “Common Sense Media What Parents Need to Know”. 2017. The Washington Post, March 23. Accessed March 31, 2018 from Regional Business News. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Screenwriting. 2001. Indianapolis, IN: Skip Press. “A Completely Unnecessary Remake”. 2019. The New Indian Express, July 20. Accessed July 29, 2019 from Factiva. Condon, Bill. 2017. “I Dared to Remake a Classic”. Entertainment Weekly, March 3, 4–7. Connors, Martin and Jim Craddock. 1999. Video Hound’s Golden Movie Retriever. Detroit, MI: Visible Ink Press. Accessed March 12, 2019 from Google Books. “Copycat Simba Is a Roaring Letdown”. 2019. Independent, July 19. Accessed July 29, 2019 from Factiva. Corliss, Richard. 1993a. “Sommersby”. Time, February 22, 69. Corliss, Richard. 1993b. “What Dreams Come To”. Time, January 25, 69. Corliss, Richard. 2005. “Once More, With Feeling”. Time, May 16. Accessed Septem­ ber 17, 2017 from Lexis Nexis. Corliss, Richard. 2012. “A Total Recall Remake: Why?” Time, August 2. Accessed March 10, 2018 from http://entertainment.time.com/2012/08/02/a-total-recall­ remake-why/. Couch, Aaron. 2017. “ ‘Lion King’ Remake Casts Donald Glover as Simba, James Earl Jones as Mufasa”. The Hollywood Reporter, February 17. Accessed August 8, 2019 from www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/lion-king-live-action-movie­ casts-donald-glover-as-simba-977488. Coyleap, Jaye. 2012. “A Dizzyingly Implausible New ‘Red Dawn’ ”. The Review, November 23. Accessed June 18, 2017 from NewsBank. Crawford, Chelsey. 2016. “Familiar Otherness: On the Contemporary Cross-Cultural Remake”. In Cycles, Sequels, Spin-Offs, Remakes and Reboots: Multiplicities in Film & Television. Edited by Amanda Ann Klein and R. Barton Palmer. Austin, TX: Uni­ versity of Texas Press, 112–129. “Critics: Italian Job Remake ‘an improvement’ ”. 2003. Irish Examiner, May 30. Accessed February 23, 2019 from www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/enter tainment/critics-italian-job-remake-an-improvement-100939.html. Cruz, Oggs. 2019. “ ‘The Lion King’ Review: Bloated, Unnecessary Spectacle”. Rappler, July 21. Accessed July 29, 2019 from www.rappler.com/entertainment/ movies/235935-the-lion-king-review.

Bibliography

291

Cunico, Kane. 2011. “13 Assassins”. The New Paper, September 22. Accessed June 10, 2019 from Factiva. “Czterej bracia (Four Brothers)”. Undated. Magazyn Kultury Popularnej Essenja. Accessed September 24, 2017 from https://esensja.pl/esensjopedia/obiekt. html?rodzaj_obiektu=1&idobiektu=2178. Dale, Martin. 2018. “Martin Scorsese on ‘The Irishman’: Netflix Is ‘Taking Risks’ ”. Variety, December 2. Accessed February 19, 2019 from https://variety.com/2018/ film/global/martin-scorsese-the-irishman-netflix-1203073076/. Dalton, Stephen. 2004. “Choice: Films, Television”. The Times, April 28. Accessed March 8, 2019 from Factiva. Dalton, Stephen. 2005. “Film; Choice”. The Times, June 3. Accessed June 18, 2018 from NewsBank. D’Angelo, Mike. 2008. “The Most Brutal Film Ever Made. Made Again”. Esquire, April. Accessed February 22, 2018 from Academic OneFile. “Dangerous? This Is Bangkok Boring”. 2008. The Daily Mail, September 5. Accessed March 15, 2018 from NewsBank. Dault, Gary Michael. 2005. “Where Earth Meets Sky, and Tragedy Meets Reality”. The Globe and Mail, October 8. Accessed February 23, 2019 from Factiva. Davies, Madeleine. 2016. “Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo + Juliet Has Been Making Tweens Horny for 20 Years”. Jezebel, November 1. Accessed September 22, 2018 from https://themuse.jezebel.com/baz-luhrmanns-romeo-juliet-has-been-making­ tweens-hor-1788458629. Davis, Guy. 2017. “Mediocre Remake Dies on the Table”. Geelong Advertiser, Octo­ ber 7. Accessed March 25, 2018 from NewsBank. Davy, Steven. 2018. “The Red Cloak of ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ Is Becoming a Symbol for Reproductive Rights”. PRI, August 8. Accessed August 8, 2019 from www.pri.org/stories/2018-08-08/red-cloak-handmaids-tale-becoming-symbol­ reproductive-rights. Dawson, Jan. 2016. “Hollywood Clings to Sequels Despite Diminishing Returns”. Variety, June 7. Accessed July 29, 2019 from https://variety.com/2016/film/ features/hollywood-franchises-sequels-box-office-1201789704/. Dawson, Jonathan. 2011. “True Grit”. ABC Radio Hobart, February 9. Accessed April 14, 2018 from www.abc.net.au/local/reviews/2011/02/09/3134289.htm. “The Day the Earth Stood Still”. 2009. The Tampa Tribune, April 7. Accessed April 2, 2018 from NewsBank. “ ‘Death’ Warmed Over as a Remake”. 2010. The Port Arthur News, April 20. Accessed April 21, 2018 from NewsBank. Debruge, Peter. 2019. “Film Review: ‘The Lion King’ ”. Variety, July 11. Accessed July 26, 2019 from https://variety.com/2019/film/reviews/the-lion-king-review­ 1203264678/. DeFore, John. 2011. “13: Film Review”. The Hollywood Reporter, November 27. Accessed September 8, 2017 from www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/13-film-review­ 254280. Delamater, Jerome. 1998. “ ‘Once More, from the Top’: Musicals the Second Time Around”. In Play It Again, Sam: Retakes on Remakes. Edited by Andrew Horton and Stuart Y. McDougal. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 80–94. Delgado, Adriana. 2017. “Stephen King’s ‘It’ Get a Darker Remake”. Art Film File, April 11. Accessed June 13, 2018 from www.artfilmfile.com/stephen-kings-gets­ new-darker-remake/.

292 Bibliography Delgado, Carlos. 2016. “The Magnificent Seven: Hollywood Remakes and the Prob­ lem of Diminishing Returns”. World Socialist Web Site, October 24. Accessed Febru­ ary 25, 2019 from www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/10/24/magn-o24.html. “Delivery Man, Review; Vince Vaughn Stars in Delivery Man, a Half-Hearted Remake of a Film with a Horrifically Unpromising Plot”. 2014. The Telegraph, January 9. Accessed June 12, 2018 from Business Insights: Essentials. Demarco, Laura. 2005. “The Pop Ten”. The Plain Dealer, July 25. Accessed April 18, 2018 from NewsBank.Desta, Yohana. 2018. “So Clueless Is Getting a Remake, Whether You Like It or Not”. Vanity Fair, October 26. Accessed August 27, 2019 from www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/10/clueless-movie-remake. “Detecting a Pointless Remake”. 2007. Cornish Guardian, November 21. Accessed February 25, 2019 from Factiva. Detel, Hanne. 2013. “Disclosure and Public Shaming in the Age of New Visibility”. In Media and Public Shaming. Edited by Julian Petley. London: I.B. Tauris, 77–96. Dewan, Shaila K. 2000. “Today’s Horror Films Are a Genre in Search of a Metaphor”. Chicago Tribune, October 29. Accessed March 12, 2019 from www.chicagotribune. com/news/ct-xpm-2000-10-29-0010290102-story.html. DiLeo, John. 2017. Ten Movies at a Time: A 350-Film Journey Through Hollywood and America 1930–1970. East Brunswick, NJ: Hansen Publishing Group. “Director, Stars Defend Darker Remake That Leaves Pastels Back in the ’80s; Fire & ‘Vice’ ”. 2006. Chicago Tribune, July 28. Accessed June 13, 2018 from NewsBank. “Disney Characters Coming to Life”. 2015. U-Wire, April 1. Accessed August 6, 2019 from Factiva. “Disney Stuffs Pockets with Another Cash-Grab”. 2019. Winnipeg Sun, 21 July. Accessed July 29, 2019 from Factiva. Dixon, Wheeler Winston. 2013. Cinema at the Margins. London: Anthem Press. Dixon, Wheeler Winston and Gwendolyn Audrey Foster. 2011. 21st-Century Holly­ wood: Movies in the Era of Transformation. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Dodds, Emma. 2017. “Be Prepared to Have Your Heart Ripped Out of Your Chest at Mufasa’s Death Again”. Closer, February 22. Accessed August 8, 2019 from https://closeronline.co.uk/entertainment/soaps/james-earl-jones-mufasa­ disney-lion-king-remake-donald-glover-childish-gambino/. Doles, Steven. 2016. “Cycle Consciousness and the White Audience in Black Film Writing: The 1949–1950 ‘Race Problem’ Cycle and the African American Press. In Cycles, Sequels, Spin-Offs, Remakes and Reboots: Multiplicities in Film & Television. Edited by Amanda Ann Klein and R. Barton Palmer. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 80–95. Donoughue, Paul. 2019. “Rotten Tomatoes Is Shutting Down Pre-Release Comments on Films in a Bid to Go After Trolls”. ABC News, February 28. Accessed March 2, 2019 from www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-28/rotten-tomatoes-disables­ comments-to-go-after-trolls/10857352. Dowd, A.A. 2015. “Improvements Aside, Secret in Their Eyes Is Still a Redundant Remake”. A/V Film, November 19. Accessed March 18, 2018 from https://film. avclub.com/improvements-aside-secret-in-their-eyes-is-still-a-red-1798185715. Dowd, A.A. 2016. “There’s Pointless, and Then There’s a Scene-for-Scene Remake of Cabin Fever”. A/V Film, November 2. Accessed March 4, 2018 from https://film. avclub.com/there-s-pointless-and-then-there-s-a-scene-for-scene-r-1798186530.

Bibliography

293

Drezner, Daniel W. 2018. “A Very Important Post About . . . Why Television Revivals Are Not the Worst”. The Washington Post, January 29. Accessed February 25, 2019 from Factiva. Druxman, Michael B. 1975. Make It Again, Sam: A Survey of Movie Remakes. South Brunswick, NJ: A.S. Barnes. Duggan, Anne E. 2016. “The Fairy-Tale Film in France: Postwar Reimaginings”. In Fairy-Tale Films Beyond Disney: International Perspectives. Edited by Pauline Greenhill and Kendra Magnus-Johnston. New York: Routledge, 64–79. Dunne, Susan. 1998. “Horrors! Daring to Revisit ‘Psycho’ Film Remakes: A Shot-forShot Defense”. Hartford Courant, December 13, G1. Durham, Carolyn A. 1998. Double Takes: Culture and Gender in French Films and Their American Remakes. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England. “DVD: Caine Remake Is Very Able!” 2004. Coventry Evening Telegraph, March 5. Accessed March 27, 2018 from NewsBank. Eagan, Daniel. 2010. America’s Film Legacy: The Authoritative Guide to the Landmark Movies in the National Film Registry. New York: Continuum. Easton, Anne. 2019. “With A Bovine Co-Star, ‘Bless This Mess’ Strives to be an Edg­ ier ‘Green Acres’ ”. Forbes, April 16. Accessed August 7, 2019 from www.forbes. com/sites/anneeaston/2019/04/16/with-a-bovine-co-star-bless-this-mess-strives­ to-be-an-edgier-green-acres/#139809a46bfb. Ebert, Roger. 2000. I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie. Kansas City, MO: Andrews McMeel Publishing. Ebert, Roger. 2009. “The Gathering Dark Age”. RogerEbert.com, August 6. Accessed Feb­ ruary 19, 2019 from www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/the-gathering-dark-age. Eberwein, Robert. 1998. “Remakes and Cultural Studies”. In Play It Again, Sam: Retakes on Remakes. Edited by Andrew Horton and Stuart Y. McDougal. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 15–33. Edelstein, David. 2004. “What’s It All About?” Slate, November 5. Accessed March 12, 2019 from https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2004/11/alfie-a-dry-anachronis tic-remake.html. Edelstein, David. 2011. “Movie Review: The Straw Dogs Remake Lacks a Reason for Being”. Vulture, September 16. Accessed March 10, 2018 from www.vulture. com/2011/09/straw_dogs_movie_review_alex_s.html. Edwards, David. 2012. “Psycho Thriller”. Daily Mirror, April 20. Accessed Febru­ ary 23, 2019 from Factiva. Eggert, Brian. 2017. “Flatliners”. Deep Focus Review, September 30. Accessed March 12, 2018 from https://deepfocusreview.com/reviews/flatliners-2017/. Egner, Jeremy. 2017. “Which Network TV Shows Have Been Canceled?” The New York Times, May 13. Accessed March 2, 2019 from Factiva. Ehrenstein, David, Bill Reed and Ed Careff. 1982. Rock on Film. London: Virgin Books. Ehrlich, David. 2019. “ ‘The Lion King’ Review: Disney’s Remake Is a Disastrous Plunge Into the Uncanny Valley”. IndieWire, July 11. Accessed September 1, 2019 from www.indiewire.com/2019/07/the-lion-king-review-2019-1202157153/. Elberse, Anita. 2014. Blockbusters: Hit-Making, Risk-Taking, and the Big Business of Entertainment. Melbourne: Scribe. Elliott, David. 2004. “Stale Flavor; Demme’s ‘The Manchurian Candidate’ Tastes Warmed-Over”. Jewish Times, August 6. Accessed June 12, 2018 from NewsBank.

294 Bibliography Ellis, John. 1982. “The Literary Adaptation: An Introduction”. Screen, 23, 1, 3–5. Ellis, Robin. 2015. “The First Ross Poldark Says the Remake Proves They Can be Just as Good as the Original”. Daily Mail, April 25, 17. Ellison, Jo. 2018. “Another Spoonful of Nostalgia? No Thanks”. Financial Times, November 17. Accessed February 19, 2019 from Factiva. Elsaesser, Thomas. 2005. European Cinema: Face to Face with Hollywood. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Emmerton, Lisa. 2011. “ ‘Making Do’ vs. ‘Making Anew’: What Not to Wear in Britain and America”. In American Remakes of British Television: Transformations and Mis­ translations. Edited by Carlen Lavigne and Heather Marcovitch. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 99–116. “The Ending of ‘The Last American Virgin’ (1982) dir. Boaz Davidson”. 2013. Dave’s Strange World, February 20. Accessed September 12, 2017 from https:// davesstrangeworld.com/2013/02/20/the-ending-of-the-last-american-virgin­ 1982-dir-boaz-davidson/. “Endless Love: Strong Cast Failed By Tepid Remake”. 2014. The Columbus Dispatch, February 14. Accessed June 19, 2018 from www.dispatch.com/content/stories/ life_and_entertainment/2014/02/14/strong-cast-failed-by-tepid-remake.html. “Entertainment”. 2015. San Angelo Standard-Times, June 5. Accessed February 25, 2019 from Factiva. Epstein, Edward Jay. 2006. “Northern Expenditure: Why Are So Many Movies Still Being Shot in Canada?” Slate, February 13. Accessed February 10, 2019 from https://slate.com/culture/2006/02/why-are-so-many-movies-shot-in-canada. html. Epstein, Warren. 1998. “Top-Notch Talent on Display in Week’s Movies on TV”. The Gazette, July 26. Accessed February 27, 2019 from Factiva. Epstein, Warren. 1999. “ ‘Fantasia; 2000’ Improves on the Original”. The Gazette, December 31. Accessed June 19, 2018 from NewsBank. Escobal, Earlene Mary. 2018. “Another Anime Remake Gets Whitewashed”. The Pioneer, March 7. Accessed February 21, 2019 from https://thepioneeronline. com/35932/opinions/another-anime-remake-gets-whitewashed/. Evangelista, Chris. 2019. “ ‘Dumbo’ Box Office Tracking Proves an Elephant Can Fly (Straight to the Bank)”. SlashFilm, March 8. Accessed July 11, 2019 from www. slashfilm.com/dumbo-box-office-tracking/. Evans, Owen and Graeme Harper. 2017. “More European Than European?” Studies in European Cinema, 14, 3, 181–183. Eyman, Scott. 2010. Empire of Dreams: The Epic Life of Cecil B. DeMille. New York: Simon & Schuster. Falsetto, Mario. 2015. Conversations with Gus Van Sant. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. “Fame? No Chance: This Irrelevant Remake Doesn’t Light Up the Sky Like a Flame”. 2009. The Guardian, September 25. Accessed April 2, 2018 from Business Insights: Essentials. “Farrelly Brothers’ ‘Kid’ Is a Half-Hearted Remake”. 2007. Baltimore Sun, October 5. Accessed June 12, 2018 from General OneFile. Feeney, Mark. 2019. “Cranston, Hart Make for an Unlikely Duo in ‘The Upside’ ”. The Boston Globe, January 11. Accessed February 19, 2019 from Factiva. Feldman, Kate. 2018. “Not ‘Charmed’: Friction as New Crew Recreated a CW Hit”. New York Daily News, October 14. Accessed February 27, 2019 from Factiva.

Bibliography

295

Ferris, Hector. 2018. “The Economics of Superheroes”. Colour Through the Lines, February 13. Accessed July 3 from www.colourthroughthelines.com/master/ 2018/1/3/superheroes. Fidgeon, Robert. 2003. “Worth a Look”. Herald Sun, September 6. Accessed Febru­ ary 23, 2019 from Factiva. “Film of Dahl Classic on Top”. 2005. Daily Post, June 26. Accessed June 13, 2018 from Business Insights: Essentials. “Film Review: 13 Sins”. 2014. Film Journal International, April 18. Accessed March 27, 2018 from www.filmjournal.com/content/film-review-13-sins. “Film Review: The Wolfman”. 2010. The Star, February 22. Accessed March 31, 2018 from NewsBank. “Films of the Day”. 2011. Daily Record, March 26. Accessed June 10, 2019 from Factiva. Filson, Darren and James H. Havlicek. 2018. “The Performance of Global Film Fran­ chises: Installment Effects and Extension Decisions”. Journal of Cultural Economics, 42, 1, 447–467. Findley, Melissa. 1998. “Remakes Can’t Duplicate Originals Success”. The Orlando Sentinel, July 31. Accessed April 12, 2018 from NewsBank. Fine, Marshall. 1994. “Hollywood Remakes Miss the Mark”. USA Today, December 6. Accessed April 8, 2018 from NewsBank. Finke, Nikke. 2007. “Strike Pushing Big Studio Movies Back to 2009 Because Screenwriters Unavailable”. Deadline Hollywood, November 16. Accessed Feb­ ruary 19, 2019 from https://deadline.com/2007/11/strike-pushing-back-big­ studio-movies-to-2009-because-of-script-problems-3942/. Fitch, Melissa A. 2009. Side Dishes: Latina American Women, Sex, and Cultural Produc­ tion. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Flynn, Bob. 1999. “An Affair to Remember”. The Guardian, August 11. Accessed Feb­ ruary 25, 2019 from Factiva. “Forbes Lists Biggest Flops of Last Five Years”. 2010. The Hollywood Reporter, Janu­ ary 22. Accessed July 12, 2018 from www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ forbes-lists-biggest-flops-last-19850. Ford, Mary. 2016. “Review: Satirical Remake of ‘Ghostbusters’ Fails to Please”. The Ithacan, August 7. Accessed March 18, 2018 from https://theithacan.org/ life-culture/satirical-re-make-of-original-ghostbusters-fails-to-please/. Foreman, Jonathan. 2000. “Hats off the ‘Shaft’ ”. New York Post, June 16. Accessed June 10, 2019 from Factiva. “Forgot About Summer School? Bummer! What About Nine More Eighties Comedies?” 2011. AMC. Accessed September 14, 2017 from www.amc.com/talk/2011/05/ top-ten-forgotten-80s-comedies. Forrest, Jennifer. 2002a. “Remaking Le Voile bleu: An Interview with Norman Worwin, Screenwriter for The Blue Veil”. In Dead Ringers: The Remake in Theory and Practice. Edited by Jennifer Forrest and Leonard R. Koos. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 309–336. Forrest, Jennifer. 2002b. “Sadie Thompson Redux: Postwar Reintegration of the Wartime Wayward Woman”. In Dead Ringers: The Remake in Theory and Practice. Edited by Jennifer Forrest and Leonard R. Koos. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 169–202. Forrest, Jennifer and Leonard R. Koos. 2002. “Reviewing Remakes: An Introduc­ tion”. In Dead Ringers: The Remake in Theory and Practice. Edited by Jennifer Forrest and Leonard R. Koos. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1–36.

296 Bibliography Fox, Michael. 1993. “Video”. Waterloo Region Record, November 4. Accessed Febru­ ary 27, 2019 from Factiva. Framke, Caroline. 2018. “ ‘Murphy Brown’ Tackles #MeToo, But Falls Short of True Insight”. Variety, October 11. Accessed April 11, 2019 from https://variety. com/2018/tv/news/murphy-brown-metoo-murphytoo-review-1202977522/. Francis Jr., James. 2013. Remaking Horror: Hollywood’s New Reliance on Scares of Old. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co. Frank, Alan. 1997. Frank’s 500: The Thriller Film Guide. London: Batsford. Frank, Alan. 2013. “Gored My Oh”. Daily Star, April 19. Accessed March 31, 2018 from NewsBank. Frazetti, Daryl G. 2009. “Distinct Identities of Star Trek Fan Film Remakes”. In Fear, Cultural Anxiety, and Transformation: Horror, Science Fiction, and Fantasy Films Remade. Edited by Scott A. Lukas and John Marmysz. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 199–220. Frederick, Candice. 2018. “Talent of Color Do Not Need White TV Show and Film Hand-Me-Downs”. SlashFilm, July 23. Accessed February 19, 2019 from www.slash film.com/buffy-reboot-problems/. Freeman, Hadley. 2005. “Patronised by the Dead”. The Guardian, April 12. Accessed March 28, 2018 from www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2005/apr/12/ features11.g21. Freeman, Hadley. 2015. Life Moves Pretty Fast: The Lessons We Learned from Eighties Movies (and Why We Don’t Learn Them from Movies Anymore). New York: Simon & Schuster. Friedman, Max Paul. 2012. Rethinking Anti-Americanism: The History of an Exceptional Concept in American Foreign Relations. New York: Cambridge University Press. Frith, David. 1987. “Winter and the Sci-Fi Chiller”. Sydney Morning Herald, July 20. Accessed February 25, 2019 from Factiva. Furia, Philip. 1996. Ira Gershwin: The Art of the Lyricist. New York: Oxford University Press. Fussell, Sidney. 2016. “Are Movies Getting Longer? Here’s the Data”. Busi­ ness Insider, June 14. Accessed July 23, 2018 from www.businessinsider.com/ are-movies-getting-longer-2016-6?IR=T. Futterman, Ellen. 1991. “Once More Down the Aisle Steve Martin Follows Big Foot­ steps in ‘Father of The Bride’ ”. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, December 20. Accessed February 23, 2019 from Factiva. Garcia, Karen and Caleb Wiseblood. 2019. “Lion King: Love It Or Hate It”. New Times, July 25. Accessed July 28, 2019 from www.newtimesslo.com/sanluisobispo/ lion-king-love-it-or-hate-it/Content?oid=8657535. Garrahan, Matthew. 2014. “The Rise and Rise of the Hollywood Film Fran­ chise”. Financial Times, December 13. Accessed July 3, 2019 from www.ft.com/ content/192f583e-7fa7-11e4-adff-00144feabdc0. Garrido, Sandra and Jane Davidson. 2019. Music, Nostalgia and Memory: Historical and Psychological Perspectives. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Gaudiosi, John. 2016. “The Original ‘Ghostbusters’ Director Loves the Remake. Here’s Why”. Fortune, July 15. Accessed August 12, 2018 from http://fortune. com/2016/07/15/ghostbusters-ivan-reitman-movie/. Gavin, Rosemarie. 1996. “ ‘The Lion King’ and ‘Hamlet’: A Homecoming for the Exiled Child”. The English Journal, 85, 3, 55–57.

Bibliography

297

Geib, Helen. 2011. “Film Buff Movie of the Month: Far from Heaven (2002) and All That Heaven Allows (1955)”. Commentary Track, September 28. Accessed July 10, 2018 from http://commentarytrack.com/2011/09/28/film-buff-movie-of-the­ month-far-from-heaven-2002-and-all-that-heaven-allows-1955/. “Gene Wilder Slams Chocolate Factory Remake as ‘an insult’ ”. 2013. New Zealand Herald, June 17. Accessed February 19, 2019 from www.nzherald.co.nz/entertain ment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10891038. Genzlinger, Neil. 2017. “ABC’s Perspiration-Free ‘Dirty Dancing’”. The New York Times, May 23. Accessed September 8, 2017 from www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/ arts/television/dirty-dancing-abc-tv-review.html?mcubz=0&mcubz=0. Georgakas, Dan. 1998. “Robin Hood: From Roosevelt to Reagan”. In Play It Again, Sam: Retakes on Remakes. Edited by Andrew Horton and Stuart Y. McDougal. Berke­ ley, CA: University of California Press, 70–79. George, Halle. 2016. “Ghostbusters Did Not Ruin Your F*cking Childhood”. Odyssey, July 18. Accessed January 22, 2019 from www.theodysseyonline.com/ ghostbusters-ruin-fcking-childhood. Gerbrandt, Larry. 2010. “How Much Does Movie Marketing Matter?” Reuters, June 11. Accessed February 19, 2019 from www.reuters.com/article/us-industry/ how-much-does-movie-marketing-matter-idUSTRE65A13Q20100611. Germain, David. 2005. “ ‘Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’, a Remake That Improves on the Original”. Iran News, July 19. Accessed June 19, 2018 from NewsBank. “Get It Out”. 2005. MX, June 8. Accessed June 10, 2019 from Factiva. Giardina, Carolyn and Pamela McClintock. 2017. “Is the Golden Age of 3D Offi­ cially Over?” The Hollywood Reporter, August 3. Accessed July 11, 2018 from www. hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/is-golden-age-3d-officially-1025843. Gibron, Bill. 2010. “A Dinner Game for Idiots, Schmucks, and Hollywood Remakes”. Pop Matters, July 30. Accessed March 27, 2018 from www.popmatters.com/128738­ a-dinner-game-for-idiots-schmucks-and-hollywood-remakes-2496163319.html. Gil, Steven. 2014. “A Remake by Any Other Name: Use of a Premise Under a New Title”. In Remake Television: Reboot, Re-use, Recycle. Edited by Carlen Lavigne. Lan­ ham, MD: Lexington Books, 21–36. Gilbert, Matthew. 2004. “This ‘Girl’ Is a Little Out of Date”. The Boston Globe, Janu­ ary 16. Accessed June 19, 2018 from NewsBank. Gilbert, Matthew. 2008. “In Remake of ‘Sybil,’ Less Depth and Less Personality”. The Boston Globe, June 7. Accessed March 10, 2018 from http://archive.boston.com/ ae/tv/articles/2008/06/07/in_remake_of_sybil_less_depth_and_less_personality/. Gillespie, Eleanor Ringel. 2001. “Vanilla Extract”. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, December 14. Accessed July 4, 2017 from NewsBank. Gire, Dann. 2016a. “Bear Necessity”. Daily Herald, April 15. Accessed March 31, 2018 from NewsBank. Gire, Dann. 2016b. “Snappy, Scary Remake of ‘Pete’s Dragon’ Magically Soars”. Daily Herald, August 12. Accessed March 31, 2018 from Business Insights: Essentials. Goggin, Joyce. 2010. “From Remake to Sequel: Ocean’s Eleven and Ocean’s Twelve”. In Second Takes: Critical Approaches to the Film Sequel. Edited by Carolyn Jess-Cooke and Constantine Verevis. Albany, New York: State University Press, 105–120. “Going to the Show with a Regular Guy: New ‘Omen’ Is Eerily Familiar”. 2006. Daily Southtown, June 23. Accessed April 8, 2018 from NewsBank.

298 Bibliography Goldberg, Lesley, 2016. “Norman Lear’s All Latino ‘One Day at a Time’ Gets Netflix Series Order”. The Hollywood Reporter, January 11, 2016. Accessed March 18, 2018 from www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/one-day-at-a-time-824478. “Good, Bad and So-So Dramas Hit Screens in Search of Ratings”. 1988. Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 20. Accessed February 25, 2019 from Factiva. Goodman, Tim. 2010. “Rockford Files and Other Remakes – Seriously? When Net­ works Get Lazy, Originality Becomes First Victim”. Houston Chronicle, May 13. Accessed March 4, 2018 from NewsBank. Goscilo, Helena. 2014. “Affluent Viewers as Global Provincials: The American Reception of Polish Cinema”. In Polish Cinema in a Transnational Context. Edited by Ewa Mazierska and Michael Goddard. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 56–76. Grant, Richard E. 2006. The Wah-Wah Diaries: The Making of a Film. London: Picador. Greenberg, Harvey R. 1998. “Raiders of the Lost Text: Remaking as Contested Hom­ age in Always”. In Play It Again, Sam: Retakes on Remakes. Edited by Andrew Horton and Stuart Y. McDougal. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 115–130. Greven, David. 2016. Ghost Faces: Hollywood and Post-Millennial Masculinity. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Griffin, Jeffrey L. 2008. “The Americanization of The Office: A Comparison of the Offbeat NBC Sitcom and Its British Predecessor”. Journal of Popular Film & Televi­ sion, 35, 4, 154–163. Griffin, Jeffrey L. 2014. “Turning Japanese: From Sideways to Saidoweizu: An Exami­ nation of the Japanese Remake of a Hollywood Film”. Film International, 12, 4, 84–98. Griffin, Nancy and Kim Masters. 1997. Hit & Run: How Jon Peters and Peter Guber Took Sony for a Ride in Hollywood. New York: Simon & Schuster. Grimm, Bob. 2008. “See Nicolas Mope; This Listless Remake of a 1999 Thai Film Lacks Substance and Excitement”. Tucson Weekly, September 11. Accessed July 4, 2018 from NewsBank. Grohmann, Barbara. 1998. “Godzilla”. The Hamilton Spectator, May 28. Accessed Feb­ ruary 27, 2019 from Factiva. Guerrero, Edward. 1990. “AIDS as Monster in Science Fiction and Horror Cinema” Journal of Popular Film & Television, 18, 3, 86–93. Guha, Divya. 2016. “Reelin’ in”. Bangalore Mirror, August 1. Accessed February 20, 2019 from Factiva. “The Guide”. 2005. The Guardian, October 29. Accessed February 25, 2019 from Factiva. Gupta, Shubhra. 2011. “Mini Chases and Smart Lines”. The Indian Express, July 23. Accessed June 10, 2019 from Hall, Sandra. 2015. “Tomorrowland Review: George Clooney Eyes the Future in Antidote to Dystopia”. The Sydney Morning Herald, May 24. Accessed February 22, 2019 from www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/tomorrowland-review-george­ clooney-eyes-the-future-in-antidote-to-dystopia-20150519-gh3z5d.html. Halliwell, Leslie and John Walker. 1996. Halliwell’s Film Guide. New York: Harper Perennial. Han, Angie. 2019. “ ‘The Lion King’ Is a Dutiful Recreation of a Beloved Classic”. Mashable, July 12. Accessed July 29, 2019 from https://mashable.com/article/ lion-king-review/.

Bibliography

299

“Handy Panda Is Back in Action”. 2011. The Herald, June 9. Accessed March 3, 2019 from Factiva. Hardy, Robert. 2015. “Don’t Let the Americans Ruin All Creatures Great and Small”. Daily Mail, August 8. Accessed September 17, 2017 from Lexis Nexis. Harney, Michael. 2002. “Economy and Aesthetics in American Remakes of French Films”. In Dead Ringers: The Remake in Theory and Practice. Edited by Jennifer For­ rest and Leonard R. Koos. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 63–88. Harries, Dan. 2000. Film Parody. London: British Film Institute. Harris, Dana and Erin Maxwell. 2009. “Mockbusters: Flattery or Rip-Off?” Variety, August 17. Accessed June 10, 2018 from Film & Television Literature Index. Harris, Paul. 2003. “Buff’s Choice”. The Age, November 28. Accessed February 25, 2019 from Factiva. Harris, Paul. 2013. “Library of Congress: 75% of Silent Films Lost”. Variety, Decem­ ber 4. Accessed July 10, 2018 from https://variety.com/2013/film/news/ library-of-congress-only-14-of-u-s-silent-films-survive-1200915020/. Hart, Kylo-Patrick R. 2013. The AIDS Movie: Representing a Pandemic in Film and Televi­ sion. New York: Routledge. Hartl, John. 1991. “Nest of Robin Hoods”. Austin American-Statesman, June 7. Accessed July 31, 2019 from Factiva. Harvey, Chris. 2012. “Gabriel Byrne on Secret State”. The Telegraph, November 7. Accessed February 27, 2019 from Factiva. Harvey, Chris. 2018. “Natalie Dormer Interview: ‘Gay or straight, coming to terms with your sexuality is the reality of being an adolescent’ ”. The Telegraph, July 7. Accessed February 27, 2019 from Factiva. Harvey, Dennis. 2011. “Review: ‘13’ ”. Variety, October 25. Accessed September 9, 2017 from http://variety.com/2011/film/reviews/13-2-1117946438/. Harvey, Kevin. 2015. All You Want to Know About the Bible in Pop Culture. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. Hassenger, Jesse. 2019. “The Art of Self-Defense Functions Like a 20-Year Anni­ versary Remake of Fight Club”. The Verge, July 10. Accessed July 29, 2019 from www.theverge.com/2019/7/10/20689056/art-of-self-defense-fight-club-20-year­ anniversary-remake-brad-pitt-comparison-david-fincher. Hatchuel, Sarah and Nathalie Vienne-Guerrin. 2017. Shakespeare on Screen: The Tem­ pest and Late Romances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hauser, Christine. 2017. “A Handmaid’s Tale of Protest”. New York Times, June 30. Accessed August 8, 2019 from www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/us/handmaids­ protests-abortion.html. Hefner, Brooks E. 2012. “Rethinking Blacula: Ideological Critique at the Intersec­ tion of Genres”. Journal of Popular Film and Television, 40, 2, 62–74. Heinze, Rüdiger and Lucia Krämer. 2015. “Introduction: Remakes and Remaking – Preliminary Reflections”. In Remakes and Remaking: Concepts – Media – Practices. Edited by Rüdiger Heinze and Lucia Krämer. Bielefeld: Verlag, 7–19. Hellekson, Karen. 2011. “Memory and the 1996 American Remake of Doctor Who”. In American Remakes of British Television: Transformations and Mistranslations. Edited by Carlen Lavigne and Heather Marcovitch. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 159–172. Heller, Dana A. 2017. “Catfight! Camp and Queer Visibility in Orange Is the New Black”. In Television for Women: New Directions. Edited by Rachel Moseley, Helen Wheatley and Helen Wood. New York: Routledge, 73–89.

300 Bibliography Heller-Nicholas, Alexandra. 2010. Rape-Revenge Films: A Critical Study. Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Co. Herbert, Daniel. 2009. “Trading Spaces: Transnational Dislocations in Insomnia/ Insomnia and Ju-on/The Grudge”. In Fear, Cultural Anxiety, and Transformation: Hor­ ror, Science Fiction, and Fantasy Films Remade. Edited by Scott A. Lukas and John Marmysz. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 143–166. Herbert, Daniel. 2017. Film Remakes and Franchises. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Uni­ versity Press. Herman, Alison. 2019. “ ‘You’ Is the Latest Beneficiary of the Very Real Netflix Bump”. The Ringer, January 11. Accessed February 24, 2019 from www.theringer. com/tv/2019/1/11/18177643/you-netflix-effect. Hess, Amanda. 2018. “The Trouble with Hollywood’s Gender Flips”. The New York Times, June 12. Accessed July 26 from www.nytimes.com/2018/06/12/movies/ oceans-8-gender-swap.html. Hewitson, Michele. 2015. “Retro Remake Unsettlingly Old Hat”. New Zealand Herald, May 9. Accessed July 11, 2019 from www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/ article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=11445526. Hewitt, Chris. 2011. “ ‘Footloose’ Review: Better Than the Original, Fast-Paced Remake Gets a Move on”. Pioneer Press, October 12. Accessed March 9, 2019 from www.twincities.com/2011/10/12/footloose-review-better-than-the-original­ fast-paced-remake-gets-a-move-on/. Hewitt, Chris. 2019. “Disney Remade ‘The Lion King’ – and They Shouldn’t Have”. Star Tribune, July 18. Accessed July 31, 2019 from www.startribune.com/ disney-remade-the-lion-king-and-they-shouldn-t-have/512893342/. Hickman, Jonathan W. 2016. “ ‘Pete’s Dragon’ Is Old-Fashioned and Heartwarming”. The Newnan Times-Herald, August 12. Accessed July 11, 2019 from http://times­ herald.com/news/2016/08/petes-dragon-is-old-fashioned-and-heartwarming. Hicks, Chris. 2011. “Family-Friendly ‘Broken Hill’ Worth a Look”. Deseret News, May 24. Accessed April 12, 2018 from www.deseretnews.com/article/700138425/ Family-friendly-Broken-Hill-worth-a-look.html. Higashi, Sumiko. 1996. “Antimodernism as Historical Representation in a Con­ sumer Culture: Cecil B. DeMille’s the Ten Commandments, 1923, 1956, 1993”. In The Persistence of History: Cinema, Television, and the Modern Event. Edited by Vivian Carol Sobchack. New York: Routledge, 91–112. “ ‘Hills’ Gorier Remake of 1977 Thriller”. 2006. The Northwest Herald, March 10. Accessed March 30, 2018. Hinson, Hal. 1992. “ ‘Peter’s Friends’: The Big Chill Warmed Over”. Washington Post, December 25. Accessed June 12, 2018 from NewsBank. Hischak, Thomas S. 2001. Film It with Music: An Encyclopedic Guide to the American Movie Musical. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Hoare, James. 2012. “Carrie Remake Is ‘Darker and More Psychological’ ”. SciFiNow, April 30. Accessed July 11, 2019 from www.scifinow.co.uk/news/ carrie-remake-is-darker-and-more-psychological/. Hobson, Louis B. 2005. “Guess What? It’s Bad”. The London Free Press, March 25, 2005. Accessed April 12, 2018 from NewsBank. Hoff, Al. 2008. “One Missed Call”. Pittsburgh City Paper, January 10. Accessed June 12, 2018 from www.pghcitypaper.com/pittsburgh/one-missed-call/Content?oid= 1339599. Hoffman, Barbara. 2005. “One Giant Playground”. New York Post, June 3. Accessed August 8, 2019 from Factiva.

Bibliography

301

Hollinger, Karen. 2006. The Actress: Hollywood Acting and the Female Star. New York: Routledge. Holmes, Adam. 2018. “Original Beauty and the Beast Writer Isn’t Happy with the Live Action Remake”. Cinema Blend, December 4. Accessed February 3, 2019 from www.cinemablend.com/news/2462791/original-beauty-and-the-beast-writer­ isnt-happy-with-the-live-action-remake. Holmes, Linda. 2016. “Lifetime’s TV Movie Remake Is One Bad ‘Mother May I Sleep with Danger’ ”. NPR, June 17. Accessed July 11, 2019 from www.npr.org/2016/ 06/17/482302330/lifetimes-tv-movie-remake-is-one-bad-mother-may-i-sleep-with­ danger. Hornaday, Ann. 2018. “I Don’t Root for Movies to Fail, But Here’s Why I’m Making an Exception for ‘Jurassic World’ ”. Daily Herald, June 23. Accessed February 26, 2019 from Factiva. Hornblow, Deborah. 2002. “With Remakes, Something is Often Lost in Transla­ tion”. Los Angeles Times, May 31. Accessed April 14, 2018 from NewsBank. “Horror Film Remake a Bit of a Yawn”. 2006. Cape Times, December 8. Accessed February 11, 2019 from InfoTrac Newsstand. “The Horror, the Horror”. 2008. Monday Magazine, February 6. Accessed March 31, 2018 from NewsBank. “Horror Remake Really Takes the Bait”. 2010. New Zealand Herald, August 28. Accessed March 27, 2018 from Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Horsley, Jack. 2005. Dogville Vs Hollywood. London: Marion Boyars. Horton, Andrew and Stuart Y. McDougal. 1998. “Introduction”. In Play It Again, Sam: Retakes on Remakes. Edited by Andrew Horton and Stuart Y. McDougal. Berke­ ley, CA: University of California Press, 1–33. Horton, Nick. 2014. “10 Directors Who Remade Their Own Films”. Den of Geek! April 29. Accessed September 6, 2017 from www.denofgeek.com/movies/ remakes/30243/10-directors-who-remade-their-own-films. Horton, Robert. 2009. “ ‘The Last House on the Left’: An Ugly, Unnecessary Remake of an Ugly 1970s Movie”. Daily Herald, March 13. Accessed March 28, 2018 from NewsBank. Horwitz, Jane. 2000. “Bedazzled”. South Florida SunSentinal, October 27. Accessed February 15, 2019 from www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-2000-10-27-0010250625­ story.html. Horwitz, Jane. 2002. “What’s the Point, Charlie?” The Buffalo News, October 24. Accessed April 8, 2018 from NewsBank. Hoskins, Colin, Stuart McFadyen and Adam Finn. 2004. Media Economics: Applying Economics to New and Traditional Media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Howard, Courtney. 2018. “Film Review: ‘Little Women’ ”. Variety, September 27. Accessed August 30, 2019 from https://variety.com/2018/film/reviews/ little-women-review-1202959508/. Howard, Scripps and Betsy Pickle. 2006. “ ‘Pulse’ Is Dark, Angst-Ridden and Barely Alive”. East Bay Times, August 15. Accessed February 7, 2019 from www.eastbay­ times.com/2006/08/15/pulse-is-dark-angst-ridden-and-barely-alive/. Howe, Desson. 2000. “Get Lost, ‘Carter’ ”. Washington Post, October 6. Accessed March 31, 2018 from NewsBank. Howell, Peter. 2007. “Full Speed Ahead”. Toronto Star, September 7. Accessed Febru­ ary 25, 2019 from Factiva. Howell, Peter. 2014. “RoboCop Remake Tries to Fix What Wasn’t Broken”. Toronto Star, February 12. Accessed June 11, 2018 from NewsBank.

302 Bibliography Howick, Peter. 2007. “Send in the Clones”. Evening Herald, March 15. Accessed Feb­ ruary 28, 2019 from Factiva. Hughes, Sarah. 2012. “Prime Suspect: There’s Something Suspect About This Dated Detective”. The Independent, June 18. Accessed July 11, 2019 from www.independ­ ent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/features/prime-suspect-theres-something­ suspect-about-this-dated-detective-7857152.html. Humphries, Stephen. 2019. “ ‘Lion King’ . . . Again? Nostalgia Drives Disney’s Live-Action Blitz”. The Christian Science Monitor, May 10. Accessed August 7, 2019 from www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/2019/0510/Lion-King-again-Nostalgia­ drives-Disney-s-live-action-blitz. Hunt, Dennis. 1990. “The Fly, Aliens Among Best Horror Films of ’80s”. Waterloo Region Record, October 27. Accessed March 2, 2019 from Factiva. Hunter, I.Q. 2009. “Exploitation as Adaptation”. In Cultural Borrowings: Appropria­ tion, Reworking, Transformation. Edited by Iain Robert Smith. Nottingham: Scope, 8–33. Hunter, Rob. 2010. “ ‘Twilight’ Producer Thinks American Audiences Are F*cking Idiots, Wants Kristen Stewart for His . . .”. Film School Rejects, June 14. Accessed Febru­ ary 15, 2019 from https://filmschoolrejects.com/twilight-producer-thinks-ameri­ can-audiences-are-f-cking-idiots-wants-kristen-stewart-for-his-d84e71bec13c/. Hurlburt, Roger. 1989. “‘Package’ Hardly Worth Unwrapping”. Sun-Sentinel, August 29. Accessed March 31, 2018 from NewsBank. Hutcheon, Linda and Siobhan O’Flynn. 2013. A Theory of Adaptation, second edi­ tion. New York: Routledge. Hutchings, Peter. 2018. Historical Dictionary of Horror Cinema. Lanham MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Hutchinson, Pamela. 2015. “Nosferaaarghtu: Why They Shouldn’t Remake Drac­ ula’s Best Film Outing”. The Guardian, July 29. Accessed February 27, 2018 from www.theguardian.com/film/2015/jul/29/nosferaaarghtu-why-they-shouldnt­ remake-draculas-best-screen-version. Hutchinson, Rachael. 2006. “Orientalism or Occidentalism? Dynamics of Appropri­ ation in Akria Kurosawa”. In Remapping World Cinema: Identity, Culture and Politics in Film. Edited by Stephanie Dennison and Song Hwee Lim. London: Wallflower Press, 173–187. Iddings, Bill. 2006. “Remake Plods Through the Original ‘Omen’ ”. The Muskegon Chronicle, June 9. Accessed April 8, 2018 from NewsBank. Ide, Wendy. 2005. “Raptures of the Deep and Delicate”. The Times, February 17. Accessed March 16, 2018 from Newspaper Source Plus. Ide, Wendy. 2019. “Cold Pursuit Review – Reheated Black Comedy Misses Its Targets”. The Observer, February 24. Accessed March 2, 2019 from www.theguardian.com/ film/2019/feb/24/cold-pursuit-review-reheated-black-comedy-liam-neeson. “If Pinkie Were Perky, Brighton Might Rock”. 2011. The Daily Mail, February 4. Accessed June 18, 2018 from NewsBank. Ingram, Hunter. 2017. “ ‘The Crow’ Director Opposes Remake of Locally Shot Film”. Star News Online, December 7. Accessed February 3, 2019 from www.starnewsonline. com/news/20171207/the-crow-director-opposes-remake-of-locally-shot-film. “The Italian Job”. 2003. Adelaide Advertiser, September 4. Accessed March 8, 2019 from Factiva. “Jaden Smith to Star in “Karate Kid” Remake”. 2008. Huffington Post, December 12. Accessed March 26, 2018 from www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/jaden-smith­ to-star-in-ka_n_142907.

Bibliography

303

Jagernauth, Kevin. 2012. “European Distributor Says ‘Cloud Atlas’ was too Intellec­ tual for American Audiences”. IndieWire, November 1. Accessed February 15, 2019 from www.indiewire.com/2012/11/european-distributor-says-cloud-atlas-was-too­ intellectual-for-american-audiences-104420/. Jagernauth, Kevin. 2017. “ ‘It’s Another Version, Not a Remake’: Tilda Swinton Talks ‘Suspiria’ ”. The Playlist, October 20. Accessed April 14, 2018 from https://the­ playlist.net/tilda-swinton-talks-suspiria-20171020/. James, Caryn. 1995. “Young Love Just Between Friends”. The New York Times, June 16. Accessed October 23, 2017 from NewsBank. James, Kendra. 2019. “Disney’s Live-Action Lion King Is Pretty, But So Unnecessary”. The Verge, July 11. Accessed July 31, 2019 from www.theverge.com/2019/7/11/ 20690427/lion-king-2019-remake-review-disney-beyonce-donald-glover-james­ earl-jones-jon-favreau. James, Stan. 2004. “Stan James Rates This Week’s TV Movies”. The Advertiser, Novem­ ber 10. Accessed June 10, 2019 from Factiva. Jankowiak, Steve. 2009. “Cult Film and Politically Correct Remakes”. Film Interna­ tional, 7, 3, 28–35. Janusonis, Michael. 1988. “ ‘D.O.A.’: The Title Says It Best”. Providence Journal, March 18. Accessed April 1, 2018 from NewsBank. Janusonis, Michael. 2006. “A Good Omen: Scary Remake Does Justice to the Classic Horror Film”. Providence Journal, June 6. Accessed March 31, 2018 from NewsBank. Jeffries, Stuart. 2008. “Master Manipulator”. The Guardian, April 1. Accessed Febru­ ary 22, 2018 from www.theguardian.com/film/2008/mar/31/austria. Jenkins, Garry and Martyn Palmer. 1990. “Studios in Quiver Over Robin Hood”. The Mail on Sunday, June 17. Accessed July 31, 2019 from Factiva. Jenkins, Mark. 1999. “With Julia Roberts, and Certain Other Changes”. Washington City Paper, May 28. Accessed April 12, 2018 from www.washingtoncitypaper.com/ arts/film-tv/article/13017789/with-julia-roberts-and-certain-other-changes. Jenkins, Mark. 2008. “ ‘Bangkok Dangerous’: A Hit Man Adrift in Thailand”. NPR, September 5. Accessed June 9, 2018 from www.npr.org/templates/story/story. php?storyId=94287700. Jensen, K. Thor. 2017. “How the AIDS Crisis Influenced Science Fiction”. Geek. com, June 5. Accessed March 12, 2019 from www.geek.com/culture/how-the­ aids-crisis-influenced-science-fiction-1702080/. Jicha, Tom. 1995. “ ‘House’ Sitcom a Clone of ‘Boss’ ”. Sun-Sentinel, April 10. Accessed April 12, 2018 from NewsBank. Johnson, Brian D. 2009a. “Horror Undead”. Maclean’s, November 2. Accessed Sep­ tember 18, 2017 from Lexis Nexis. Johnson, Brian D. 2009b. “Why Remake a Perfectly Good Movie?” Maclean’s, June 22, 63. Jones, J.R. 2008. “The Same Movie Twice”. Chicago Reader, March 13. Accessed Sep­ tember 7, 2017 from www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/the-same-movie-twice/ Content?oid=1110094. Jones, Mike. 2019. “Original Suspiria Director Dario Argento Wasn’t a Fan of the Remake”. ScreenRant, January 19. Accessed February 3, 2019 from https:// screenrant.com/suspiria-director-dario-argento-hates-remake/. “ ‘Jungle Book’ Is a New Family Film Classic; Favreau Has Made the Rare Remake That Actually Improves on the Original”. 2016. The Lebanon Daily Record, April 23. Accessed June 19, 2018 from NewsBank.

304 Bibliography Kahn, Juliet. Undated. “Why the Lion King Will Blow Everyone Away This Summer”. Looper. Accessed August 6, 2019 from www.looper.com/154400/why-the-lion-king­ will-blow-everyone-away-this-summer/. Kamine, Mark. 2017. “Why Comic Book Films Are Ever More Homogenized”. The Times Literary Supplement, August 23. Accessed July 3 from www.the-tls.co.uk/ articles/public/comic-book-films-economics-politics/. Kaminsky, Stuart M. 1972. “The Samurai Film and the Western”. Journal of Popular Film, 1, 4, 312–324. Kang, Cecilia. 2015. “Hollywood’s Addiction to Franchises Is Reaching New Extremes”. The Washington Post, January 16. Accessed July 3, 2019 from www.washingtonpost. com/business/economy/hollywoods-addiction-to-franchises-is-reaching-new-ext remes/2015/01/16/4b8bc934-96a9-11e4-aabd-d0b93ff613d5_story. Karmani, Adam. 2016. “Why Film Remakes Are More ‘in’ Than Ever”. Esquire, October 24. Accessed October 23, 2017 from www.esquireme.com/content/ 18135-film-remakes-are-more-in-than-ever. Katovich, Michael A. and Patrick T. Kinkade. 1993. “The Stories Told in Science Fic­ tion and Social Science: Reading the Thing and Other Remakes from Two Eras”. The Sociological Quarterly, 34, 4, 619–651. Kaufman, Bill. 1986. “A Slick Remake of a ’50s Sci-Fi Thriller”. Newsday, June 6. Accessed March 31, 2018 from NewsBank. Kay, Jeremy. 2010. “The Death at a Funeral Remake Should Have Died an Early Death”. The Guardian, April 16. Accessed February 25, 2019 from Factiva. Keegan, Rebecca. 2018. “Why Every Era Gets the A Star Is Born It Deserves”. Van­ ity Fair, August 30. Accessed October 15, 2018 from www.vanityfair.com/ hollywood/2018/08/why-every-era-gets-the-a-star-is-born-it-deserves. Kelly, Alan. 2001. “DeMille, Cecil”. In The Guide to United States Popular Culture. Edited by Ray Broadus Browne and Pat Browne. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 224–225. Kendall, James. 2017. “Remaking Beyond Boundaries: The Case of La Femme Nikita and Point of No Return”. Palaver, 6, 2, 211–236. Kennedy-Karpat, Colleen and Eric Sandberg. 2017. “Adaptation and Systems of Cul­ tural Value”. In Adaptation, Awards Culture, and the Value of Prestige. Edited by Col­ leen Kennedy-Karpat and Eric Sandberg. Cham: Palgrave, 1–22. Kepler, Adam W. 2015. “It’s a Reboot, But You Can’t Call It That”. The Canberra Times, August 5. Accessed February 27, 2019 from Factiva. Kermode, Mark. 2011. “When Is a Remake Not a Remake?” BBC, January 25. Accessed April 14, 2018 from www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/2011/01/ when_is_a_remake_not_a_remake.html. Kerr, Philip. 2002. “Bad Deeds: Philip Kerr Despairs at a Particularly Dumb Remake of a Hollywood Classic”. New Statesman, November 4. Accessed April 1, 2018 from Literature Resource Center. Kerrigan, Finola. 2010. Film Marketing. Burlington, MA: Butterworth. Keveney, Bill. 2004. “Cable Remakes: New, But Improved?” USA Today, January 13. Accessed April 8, 2018 from NewsBank. Kiang, Jessica, Oli Lyttelton and Rodrigo Perez. 2013. “10 Directors Who Remade Their Own Movies”. IndieWire, November 21. Accessed September 6, 2017 from www.indiewire.com/2013/11/10-directors-who-remade-their-own-movies-91369/. King, Greg. Undated. “Scouts guide to the zombie apocalypse”. Greg King’s Film Reviews. Accessed September 13, 2017 from https://filmreviews.net.au/ scouts-guide-to-the-zombie-apocalypse/.

Bibliography

305

Kinnard, Ron. 1988. Beasts and Behemoths: Prehistoric Creatures in the Movies. Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press. Kinzel, Till. 2015. “The Remake as Re-Adaptation of an English Classic: Charles Dickens’s Oliver Twist on Film”. In Remakes and Remaking: Concepts – Media – Prac­ tices. Edited by Rüdiger Heinze and Lucia Krämer. Bielefeld: Verlag, 115–130. Kirk, Ashley. 2016. “How Does the BBC Spend Its £3.7bn in License Fee Money?” The Telegraph, April 14. Accessed February 13, 2019 from www.telegraph.co.uk/ news/2016/04/14/how-does-the-bbc-spend-its-5bn-in-licence-fee-money/. Kit, Borys. 2010. “ ‘Crazies’ Remake Influenced by Post-9/11 World”. Reuters, March 2. Accessed March 1, 2019 from www.reuters.com/article/us-crazies/ crazies-remake-influenced-by-post-9-11-world-idUSTRE6210ER20100302. Kit, Borys. 2019. “Jason Reitman to Direct New ‘Ghostbusters’ Movie”. The Hollywood Reporter, January 15. Accessed February 2, 2019 from www.hollywoodreporter. com/heat-vision/jason-reitman-direct-new-ghostbusters-movie-1176512. Klein, Amanda Ann and R. Barton Palmer. 2016. “Introduction”. In Cycles, Sequels, Spin-Offs, Remakes and Reboots: Multiplicities in Film & Television. Edited by Amanda Ann Klein and R. Barton Palmer. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1–21. Klepper, Robert K. 2005. Silent Films, 1877–1996: A Critical Guide to 646 Movies. Jef­ ferson, NC: McFarland & Co. Kloke, Joshua. 2017. “Lights, Canada, Action! Why Film-Makers Are Heading North of the US Border”. The Guardian, September 7. Accessed February 10, 2019 from www.theguardian.com/discover-cool-canada/2017/sep/07/lights-canada­ action-why-film-makers-are-heading-north-of-the-us-border. Knight, Chris. 2009. “Everybody’s Fine: Mislead the Parent”. Canwest News Service, December 3. Accessed February 27, 2019 from Factiva. Knight, Chris. 2019. “Disney’s New Live-Action Lion King Prompts One Mane Question: Why?” National Post, July 17. Accessed July 26, 2019 from https:// nationalpost.com/entertainment/movies/disneys-new-live-action-lion-king-prompts­ one-mane-question-why. Knolle, Sharon. 2015. “The 13 Most Pointless Horror Movie Remakes Ever Made”. MovieFone, May 19. Accessed July 11, 2019 from www.moviefone.com/2015/05/19/ pointless-horror-movie-remakes/. Knöppler, Christian. 2017. The Monster Always Returns: American Horror Films and Their Remakes. Bielefeld: Verlag. Knox, Simone. 2018. “Shameless, the Push-Pull of Transatlantic Fiction Format Adap­ tation, and Star Casting”. New Review of Film and Television Studies, 16, 3, 295–323. Koehler, Robert. 2006. “Pulse; Ghosts in the Internet Trigger the Apocalypse in ‘Pulse,’ a Dumbed-Down Remake of Kiyoshi Kurosawa’s Disturbingly Abstract Japanese Horror Film”. Daily Variety, August 13. Accessed February 12, 2019 from Factiva. Kolker, Robert P. 1998. “Algebraic Figures: Recalculating the Hitchcock Formula”. In Play It Again, Sam: Retakes on Remakes. Edited by Andrew Horton and Stuart Y. McDougal. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 34–51. Kooyman, Ben. 2012. “From Attack of the 50 Foot Bard to the Incredible Shrink­ ing Bard: Shakespeare Cinema in the Noughties”. In The Shadow of the Precursor. Edited by Diana Glenn, Md Rezaul Haque, Ben Kooyman and Nena Bierbaum. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 90–105. Kopotsha, Jazmin. 2018. “Here’s the Issue with BBC’s New Les Misérables Adapta­ tion”. Refinery29, December 30. Accessed February 23, 2019 from www.refinery29. com/en-gb/bbc-one-les-miserables-review.

306 Bibliography Koul, Scaachi. 2019. “I Really Wanted ‘The Lion King’ To Slap”. BuzzFeed, July 16. Accessed July 29, 2019 from www.buzzfeednews.com/article/scaachikoul/ the-lion-king-reviews-beyonce-disney. Krämer, Lucia. 2015. “Hollywood Remade: New Approaches to Indian Remakes of Western Films”. In Remakes and Remaking: Concepts – Media – Practices. Edited by Rüdiger Heinze and Lucia Krämer. Bielefeld: Verlag, 81–96. Krieger, Deborah. 2017. “Why Do Remakes Have To Be ‘Darker’ and ‘Grittier’?” The Awl, July 24. Accessed March 29, 2018 from www.theawl.com/2017/07/ why-do-remakes-have-to-be-darker-and-grittier/. Lacey, Liam. 2007. “Stunt Casting Can’t Salvage This Stolid Remake”. The Globe and Mail, October 26. Accessed February 4, 2019 from Factiva. Lachonis, Jon and Amy J. Johnston. 2008. Lost Ate My Life: The Inside Story of a Fandom Like No Other. Toronto: ECW Press. Lambie, Ryan. 2011. “The Genre-Swap Remake: AFuture Trend in Hollywood Filmmak­ ing?” Den of Geek!, July 4. Accessed September 15, 2017 from www.denofgeek.com/ movies/17699/the-genre-swap-remake-a-future-trend-in-hollywood-filmmaking. “Lame! Tepid Remake of ‘Fame’ Is Going Nowhere Fast”. 2009. New York Post, Sep­ tember 25. Accessed June 19, 2018 from Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Lane, Anthony. 2008. “Recurring Nightmare”. New Yorker, March 17. Accessed July 11, 2019 from www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/03/17/recurring-nightmare. Lang, Brett. 2015. “ ‘Tomorrowland’ Exposes Hollywood’s Originality Problem”. Variety, May 25. Accessed February 18, 2019 from https://variety.com/2015/film/ news/tomorrowland-box-office-failure-originality-1201504586/. Lang, Brett and Marc Malkin. 2018. “ ‘Mary Poppins Returns’: Why Julie Andrews Turned Down a Cameo”. Variety, November 30. Accessed July 31, 2019 from https://vari­ ety.com/2018/film/awards/mary-poppins-returns-julie-andrews-1203065856/. Lapin, Andrew. 2017. “Tale as Old as Time – and It Shows: ‘Beauty and the Beast’ ”. NPR, March16. Accessed September1, 2019 from www.npr.org/2017/03/16/519638130/ tale-as-old-as-time-and-it-shows-beauty-and-the-beast. Larsen, Dave. 2002. “Dumbed-Down ‘Deeds’ Is a Goofy Remake”. Dayton Daily News, June 28. Accessed March 10, 2018 from NewsBank. LaSalle, Mick. 2004. “Streep Sparkles in a Fast-Paced Remake”. San Francisco Gate, December 21. Accessed March 8, 2019 from www.sfgate.com/movies/article/ Streep-sparkles-in-a-fast-paced-remake-2662560.php. Lavigne, Carlen. 2011. “A Hollywood Gamble: Blackpool, Viva Laughlin, and the Failed Mechanics of Americanization”. In American Remakes of British Television: Transformations and Mistranslations. Edited by Carlen Lavigne and Heather Marco­ vitch. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 55–74. Lavigne, Carlen. 2014. “Once Upon a Time in the 21st Century: Beauty and the Beast as Post-9/11 Fairy Tale”. In Remake Television: Reboot, Re-Use, Recycle. Edited by Car­ len Lavigne. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 83–96. Lavigne, Carlen and Heather Marcovitch. 2011. “Introduction”. In American Remakes of British Television: Transformations and Mistranslations. Edited by Carlen Lavigne and Heather Marcovitch. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, ix–xvii. Lavin, Cheryl. 1996. “ ‘Casablanca’ for Boobs: ‘Barb Wire’ the Latest DumbedDown Ripoff of a Movie Classic”. Tribune, May 14. Accessed March 10, 2018 from NewsBank. Lazic, Manuela. 2019. “Excuse My French: Hollywood’s Doomed Remakes of French Comedies”. The Ringer, January 11. Accessed February 21, 2019 from

Bibliography

307

www.theringer.com/movies/2019/1/11/18178012/the-upside-french-remake­ intouchables-the-birdcage-three-men-and-a-baby-dinner-for-schmucks. Leavis, Frank R. 2006. “Mass Civilisation and Minority Culture”. In Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: A Reader. Edited by John Storey. Essex: Pearson Education Limited, 12–20. Lee, Andy. 2019. “Hats Off to a Gem”. Sunday Express, January 13. Accessed Febru­ ary 25, 2019 from Factiva. Lee, Christina. 2012. Violating Time: History, Memory, and Nostalgia in Cinema. New York: Continuum. Leeder, Murray. 2018. Horror Film: A Critical Introduction. New York: Bloomsbury. Leitch, Thomas M. 1990. “Twice-Told Tales: The Rhetoric of the Remake”. Literature/Film Quarterly, 18, 3, 138–149. Leitch, Thomas M. 2000. “101 Ways to Tell Hitchcock’s Psycho from Gus Van Sant’s”. Literature Film Quarterly, 28, 4, 269–273. Leitch, Thomas M. 2002. “Twice-Told Tales: Disavowal and the Rhetoric of the Remake”. In Dead Ringers: The Remake in Theory and Practice. Edited by Jennifer For­ rest and Leonard R. Koos. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 37–72. Leitch, Thomas M. 2003. “Hitchcock Without Hitchcock”. Literature Film Quarterly, 31, 4, 248–259. Leitch, Thomas M. 2019. “Instead of the Real Thing: Six Ways to Talk About What Hollywood Does to European Films”. Communications. In press. Lekich, John. 1987. “From the Mail Room to the Director’s Chair”. The Globe and Mail, June 12. Accessed March 2, 2019 from Factiva. Lemire, Christy. 2005. “Remake Goes Three and Out”. Northwest Indiana Times, May 27. Accessed March 10, 2018 from www.nwitimes.com/entertainment/ remake-goes-three-and-out/article_8af1f059-0c70-5b00-a0ea-7b800135be5a.html. Lemire, Christy. 2011. “Why the Backlash Over a ‘Footloose’ Remake”. The San Diego Union-Tribune, October 11. Accessed February 4, 2019 from www.sandiegoun iontribune.com/sdut-essay-why-the-backlash-over-a-footloose-remake-2011oct11­ story.html. Lentz, Robert J. 2000. Lee Marvin: His Films and Career. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co. “Let Me Skip the Re-Vamp”. 2010. The People, November 7. Access April 21, 2018 from NewsBank. Lev, Peter. 2007. Transforming the Screen, 1950–1959. Berkeley, CA: University of Cali­ fornia Press. Levy, Emanuel. 1999. Cinema of Outsiders: The Rise of American Independent Film. New York: New York University Press. Lewis, Michael V. 2017. “3D Shows Enduring Value, Delivering Entertainment Not Found at Home”. Variety, August 24. Accessed July 12, 2018 from https://variety. com/2017/voices/columns/3d-movies-audiences-1202535879/. “Lights, Camera . . . a Guide to What’s Hot (and What’s Not) in Cinemas This Week”. 2010. The Sunday Mail, December 12. Accessed February 20, 2019 from Factiva. Lim, Bliss Cua. 2009. Translating Time: Cinema, the Fantastic, and Temporal Critique. Durham: Duke University Press. Limbacher, James L. 1979. Haven’t I Seen You Somewhere Before? Remakes, Sequels and Series in Motion Pictures and Television, 1906–1978. Ann Abor, MI: The Pierian Press. Lindenfeld, Laura and Fabio Parasecoli. 2017. Feasting Our Eyes: Food Films and Cul­ tural Identity in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press.

308 Bibliography Lindner, Oliver. 2012. “ ‘An Entirely Different and New Story’: A Case Study of Tim Burton’s Planet of the Apes (2001)”. In Adaptation and Cultural Appropriation: Litera­ ture, Film, and the Arts. Edited by Pascal Nicklas and Oliver Lindner. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 117–131. Lindner, Oliver. 2015. “The Remade Prequel – Rise of Planet of the Apes (2001)”. In Remakes and Remaking: Concepts – Media – Practices. Edited by Rüdiger Heinze and Lucia Krämer. Bielefeld: Verlag, 23–40. Lizardi, Ryan. 2010. “ ‘Re-Imagining’ Hegemony and Misogyny in the Contempo­ rary Slasher Remake”. Journal of Popular Film & Television, 38, 3, 113–121. Lizardi, Ryan. 2014. “The Nostalgic Revolution Will be Televised”. In Remake Televi­ sion: Reboot, Re-Use, Recycle. Edited by Carlen Lavigne. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 37–52. Lizardi, Ryan. 2017. Nostalgic Generations and Media: Perception of Time and Available Meaning. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Lodge, Guy. 2017. “Sofia Coppola: ‘I never felt I had to fit into the majority view’ ”. The Guardian, July 2. Accessed October 22, 2018 from www.the guardian.com/film/2017/jul/02/sofia-coppola-beguiled-i-never-felt-i-had-to­ fit-into-the-majority-view-interview. Loock, Kathleen. 2012. “The Return of the Pod People: Remaking Cultural Anxi­ eties in Invasion of the Body Snatchers”. In Film Remakes, Adaptations and Fan Pro­ ductions. Edited by Kathleen Loock and Constantine Verevis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 122–144. Loock, Kathleen. 2016. “Retro-Remaking: The 1980s Film Cycle in Contemporary Hollywood Cinema”. In Cycles, Sequels, Spin-Offs, Remakes and Reboots: Multiplicities in Film & Television. Edited by Amanda Ann Klein and R. Barton Palmer. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 277–298. Loock, Kathleen and Constantine Verevis. 2012. Film Remakes, Adaptations and Fan Productions: Remake|Remodel. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Lopez, Kristen. 2019. “The Lion King Is a Gorgeous But Completely Unnecessary Retelling”. Gizmodo, July 11. Accessed July 29, 2019 from https://io9.gizmodo. com/the-lion-king-is-a-gorgeous-but-completely-unnecessary-1836244494. Loughrey, Clarisse. 2016. “Beauty and the Beast Trailer: First Full Look at Emma Watson’s Belle in Disney Live-Action Remake”. The Independent, November 14. Accessed February 28, 2019 from Factiva. Lovell, Glenn. 2004. “ ‘Don’t Remake Good Movies, Remake Bad Ones’: The Grow­ ing Trend to Recycle Old Movie Titles Cries Out for Rules to Prevent So Many Duds from Making It Into Cinemas”. Ottawa Citizen, April 10. Accessed Febru­ ary 23, 2019 from Factiva. Lowe, Jeff. 2019. “The Hustle, a Bad Movie and Unnecessary Remake”. Barstool Sports, May 29. Accessed August 7, 2019 from www.barstoolsports.com/newyork/ review-the-hustle-a-bad-movie-and-unnecessary-remake. Lowe, Justin. 2015. “Poltergeist: A Solid, Scary Remake of the ’80s Classic”. Waterloo Region Record, May 21. Accessed March 31, 2018 from NewsBank. Lowe, Kenneth. 2016. “Nobody’s Son: The Legacy of Dashiell Hammett”. Paste, May 2. Accessed February 21, 2019 from www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/04/ nobodys-son.html. Lowing, Rob. 1990. “Our Mel and His Merry Men”. The Sun Herald, July 8. Accessed July 31, 2019 from Factiva.

Bibliography

309

Lowing, Rob. 1997. “Romancing the Clone”. The Sun Herald, October 5. Accessed April 9, 2018 from NewsBank. Luberto, Asher. 2019. “Dumbo: A Soulless Remake That Never Takes Flight”. Film Inquiry, March 29. Accessed September 1, 2019 from www.filminquiry.com/ dumbo-2019-review/. Lucas, Matthew. 2019. “Disney’s Latest Live-Action Remake Is a Bust”. The Dispatch, May 29. Accessed June 14, 2019 from www.the-dispatch.com/entertainmentlife/ 20190529/disneys-latest-live-action-remake-is-bust, Lukas, Scott A. and John Marmysz. 2009a. Fear, Cultural Anxiety, and Transformation: Horror, Science Fiction, and Fantasy Films Remade. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Lukas, Scott A. and John Marmysz. 2009b. “Horror, Science Fiction, and Fantasy Films Remade”. In Fear, Cultural Anxiety, and Transformation: Horror, Science Fiction, and Fantasy Films Remade. Edited by Scott A. Lukas and John Marmysz. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 1–22. Lukk, Tiiu. 1997. Movie Marketing: Opening the Picture and Giving It Legs. Los Angeles, CA: Silman-James Press. Luksic, Jim. 2000. “Dark Remake of ‘Get Carter’ Is Too Dim for Light to Get Insight”. Dayton Daily News, October 7. Accessed June 13, 2018 from NewsBank. Lumenick, Lou. 2002. “Eyes Wide Open: Best Work in Years for Pacino, Williams in Thriller ‘Insomnia’ ”. New York Post, May 24. Accessed February 25, 2019 from Factiva. Lyons, John. 1996. “Bard’s Soundtrack Young, Busy”. Winnipeg Free Press, Novem­ ber 30. Accessed March 8, 2019 from Factiva. Macaulay, Sean. 2005. “The Past Is Another Remake”. The Times, July 14. Accessed March 8, 2019 from Factiva. MacDonald, Gina and Andrew MacDonald. 2003. Jane Austen on Screen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Macor, Alison. 2010. Chainsaws, Slackers, and Spy Kids: Thirty Years of Filmmaking in Austin, Texas. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Maddox, Garry. 2010. “The Rise of the Reboots”. The Sydney Morning Herald, Decem­ ber 9. Accessed February 25, 2019 from Factiva. Maerz, Melissa. 2011. “Fright Night (1985) vs. Fright Night (2011): Why the Update’s Far More Old-Fashioned Than the Classic”. Entertainment Weekly, August 20. Accessed March 29, 2018 from http://ew.com/article/2011/08/20/ fright-night-1985-2011/. Maher, Kevin. 2012. “No More Remakes or Reunions Please – It’s Just Comfort-Food Culture”. The Times, December 10. Accessed February 3, 2019 from Factiva. Maher, Kevin. 2017. “Film Review: The Beguiled”. The Times, July 14. Accessed July 10, 2018 from www.thetimes.co.uk/article/film-review-the-beguiled-qbbs7xp78. “Mailmovies: Top 10 Films”. 2005. Sunday Mail, April 24. Accessed March 31, 2018 from NewsBank. Mallenbaum, Carly. 2018. “ ‘Wonder Woman 2’: Everything We Know So Far About the Sequel, Now Delayed Until Summer 2020”. USA Today, October 22. Accessed September 1, 2019. Malone, Aubrey. 2010. Sacred Profanity: Spirituality at the Movies. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. Maltin, Leonard. 1994. Leonard Maltin’s Movie and Video Guide. New York: Plume. Maltin, Leonard. 2014. Leonard Maltin’s 2015 Movie Guide. New York: Penguin.

310 Bibliography “Man of Steel Is Solid Gold at the Box Office”. 2013. New York Examiner, June 17. Accessed June 13, 2018 from NewsBank. “Man Worried New ‘Jumanji’ Movie Going to Ruin Memory of Mediocre After­ noon in 1995”. 2017. The Onion. December 19. Accessed February 4, 2019 from https://local.theonion.com/man-worried-new-jumanji-movie-going-to-ruin­ memory-of-1821427104. Mann, Alex. 2016. “Review: Point Break”. Concrete, February 29. Accessed April 2, 2018 from www.concrete-online.co.uk/review-point-break/. Manne, Robert. 2006. “Little America”. In The Best Australian Essays 2006. Edited by Drusilla Modjeska. Melbourne: Black Inc, 354–378. Marcovitch, Heather. 2011. “Memories of Mars: Life on Mars and the Discursive Practices of Memory”. In American Remakes of British Television: Transformations and Mistranslations. Edited by Carlen Lavigne and Heather Marcovitch. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 173–192. Marcus, Gary. 2015. “Teaching Robots to be Moral”. The New Yorker, March 12. Accessed June 12, 2018 from www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/teaching­ robots-to-be-moral. Markert, John. 2013. Hooked in Film: Substance Abuse on the Big Screen. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Marshall, P. David. 1997. Celebrity and Power: Fame in Contemporary Culture. Minneapo­ lis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Martain, Tim. 2018. “Movie Review: This Unnecessary Remake Should Go to the Back of the Line”. Mercury, September 29. Accessed March 28, 2018 from www. themercury.com.au/entertainment/movie-review-this-unnecessary-remake­ should-go-to-the-back-of-the-line/news-story/07074734d56a7b53661ede75 53d42747. Martens, James W. 2011. “Come On Over! The African Americanization of Steptoe and Son”. In American Remakes of British Television: Transformations and Mistransla­ tions. Edited by Carlen Lavigne and Heather Marcovitch. Lanham, MD: Lexing­ ton Books, 211–226. Martens, James W. 2014. “Look – (Stop Me If You’ve Read This One) But There Were These Two Spies: The Avengers Through the Swinging ’60s”. In Remake Televi­ sion: Reboot, Re-Use, Recycle. Edited by Carlen Lavigne. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 65–82. Martin, John. 1994. “TV Tonight – Murder Suspect Seems Untouchable in Dennehy Mystery”. Charleston Gazette, July 29. Accessed March 2, 2019 from Factiva. Martin, Tony. 2008. “ ‘Shutter’ Another Dumbed-Down Horror Flick”. The Northern Star, March 25. Accessed March 10, 2018 from NewsBank. Mathijs, Ernest. 2004. The Cinema of the Low Countries. New York: Wallflower Press. Matthews, Philip. 2016. “Disentangling the US Electoral System”. The Press, May 28. Accessed February 25, 2019 from Factiva. Mauger, Nathan. 1994. “ ‘Getaway’ Takes a Great Story and Makes It Even Better”. The Spokesman Review, February 21. Accessed February 25, 2019 from Factiva. Mavis, Paul. 2001. The Espionage Filmography: United States Releases, 1898 Through 1999. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co. May, Scott. 2013. “Warmed-Over ‘Carrie’ Remake Lacks Both Creativity and Chills”. Columbia Daily Tribune, October 24. Accessed April 12, 2018 from NewsBank. Mazdon, Lucy. 2000. Encore Hollywood: Remaking French Cinema. London: British Film Institution.

Bibliography

311

Mazdon, Lucy. 2017. “Disrupting the Remake: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”. In Transnational Film Remakes. Edited by Iain Robert Smith and Constantine Verevis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 21–35. McBride, Joseph. 2011. Frank Capra: The Catastrophe of Success. Jackson, MS: Univer­ sity Press of Mississippi. McCardle, Kevin. 1998. “Video – Review”. The Herald, December 28. Accessed March 2, 2019. McClintock, Pamela. 2014. “$200 Million and Rising: Hollywood Struggles with Soar­ ing Marketing Costs”. The Hollywood Reporter, July 31. Accessed February 19, 2019 from www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/200-million-rising-hollywood-struggles­ 721818. McCoy, Heath. 2005. “Now Hear This”. Calgary Herald, July 19. Accessed June 10, 2019 from Factiva. McDonald, Neil. 2006. “When Is a Remake a Masterpiece?” Quadrant, December, 77–79. McDonald, Soraya Nadia. 2015. “Do Female-Led Remakes Like ‘Ghostbusters’ and ’21 Jump Street’ Signal Progress or Pandering?”. The Washington Post, May 5. Accessed April 21, 2018 from www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertain ment/wp/2015/05/05/do-female-led-remakes-like-ghostbusters-and-21-jump­ street-signal-progress-or-pandering/. McDowell, Walter and Alan Batten. 2005. Branding TV: Principles and Practices. Burl­ ington, MA: Elsevier. McEwen, Lauren. 2012. “ ‘Sparkle’: The 2012 Remake Portrays Black Women in a More Ambitious Light”. The Washington Post, August 12. Accessed March 9, 2019 from Factiva. McGhee, Richard D. 1990. John Wayne: Actor, Artist, Hero. Jefferson, NC: McFar­ land & Co. McGill, Hannah. 2003. “TV Films of the Week”. The Herald, June 28. Accessed June 12, 2018 from www.heraldscotland.com/news/11991041.Hannah_McGill_ apos_s__TV_films_of_the_week/. McGilligan, Patrick. 1991. Backstory 2: Interviews with Screenwriters of the 1940s and 1950s. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. McGowan, Todd. 2012. The Fictional Christopher Nolan. Austin, TX: The University of Texas Press. McGraine, Danielle. 2015. “Point Break Remake Breaking from Classic Past”. New­ castle Herald, September 23. Accessed April 14, 2018 from www.theherald.com.au/ story/3374715/point-break-remake-breaking-from-classic-past/. McHenry, Jackson. 2018. “Lucy Davis on Chilling Adventures of Sabrina’s Dark Take on Aunt Hilda and Zelda”. Vulture, October 26. Accessed August 8, 2019 from www. vulture.com/2018/10/chilling-adventures-of-sabrina-lucy-davis-aunt-hilda.html. McIntosh, Steven. 2018. “The Strange Phenomenon of ‘Twin Films’ ”. BBC, April 2. Accessed April 9, 2018 from www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-43371881. McKenzie, Michael. 2011. “I Spit on Your Remake”. Land of Whimsy, January 11. Accessed July 11, 2019 from www.landofwhimsy.com/archives/2011/01/i-spit­ on-your-remake/. McLean, Ralph. 2019. “Dumbo Doesn’t Take Off”. Sunday Life, March 31. Accessed June 14, 2019 from Factiva. McLevy, Alex. 2015. “America Gets a Remake of The Returned, Can Stop Reading Subtitles”. AV Club, January 27. Accessed April 14, 2018 from https://tv.avclub. com/america-gets-a-remake-of-the-returned-can-stop-reading-1798275952.

312 Bibliography McNamara, Mary. 2014. “ ‘Gracepoint’ Is a Dumbed-Down ‘Broadchurch’ ”. Seattle Times, October 2. Accessed March 12, 2018 from www.seattletimes.com/entertainment/ lsquogracepointrsquo-is-a-dumbed-down-lsquobroadchurchrsquo/. McPherson, Alan and Ivan Krastev. 2007. The Anti-American Century. Budapest: Cen­ tral European University Press. Means, Sean P. 2012. “Movie Review: ‘Red Dawn’ Is Reheated Cold War Leftovers”. The Salt Lake Tribune, November 21. Accessed March 2, 2019 from https://archive. sltrib.com/article.php?id=24145802&itype=storyID. Mee, Laura. 2017. “The Hollywood Remake Massacre: Adaptation, Reception, and Value”. In Adaptation, Awards Culture, and the Value of Prestige. Edited by Colleen Kennedy-Karpat and Eric Sandberg. Cham: Palgrave, 192–210. Meehan, Paul. 2011. Horror Noir: Where Cinema’s Dark Sisters Meet. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co. Membery, York. 2002. “Fans of Italian Job Angered by Remake of Caine Classic”. The Telegraph, April 14. Accessed February 23, 2019 from www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ worldnews/northamerica/usa/1390861/Fans-of-Italian-Job-angered-by-remake­ of-Caine-classic.html. Mendelson, Scott. 2013. “ ‘Robocop’ and the Problem with Remakes”. Forbes, July 11. Accessed September 18, 2017 from www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/ 2013/11/07/trailer-talk-robocop-and-the-problem-with-remakes/#591894adee21. Mendelson, Scott. 2016. “ ‘Mulan’ and ‘The Lion King’ Remakes Are Great News for Disney Animation Fans”. Forbes, October 5. Accessed February 19, 2019 from www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2016/10/05/mulan-and-the-lion-king­ remakes-are-great-news-for-disney-animation-fans/#37411d902183. Mendelson, Scott. 2018. “What ‘Venom’s Box Office Triumph Says About ‘Amazing Spider-Man 3’ ”. Forbes, November 12. Accessed March 2, 2019 from www.forbes. com/sites/scottmendelson/2018/11/12/box-office-venom-shows-why-amazing­ spider-man-3-might-have-been-a-hit/#7d97efe84066. Mendelson, Scott. 2019. “ ‘Aladdin’ Review: Walt Disney’s Remake Stays One Jump Ahead of Its Flaws”. Forbes, May 22. Accessed August 6, 2019 from www. forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2019/05/22/aladdin-review-will-smith-mena­ massoud-naomi-scott-marwan-kenzari-guy-ritiche-walt-disney/#72166bc15739. Mera, Miguel. 2009. “Invention/Re-invention”. MSMI, 3, 1, 1–20. Mesce Jr. Bill. 2007. Overkill: The Rise and Fall of Thriller Cinema. Jefferson, NC: McFar­ land & Co. Metz, Christian. 2010. “Impersonal Enunciation, or the Place of Film”. New Review of Film and Television Studies, 8, 4, 348–871. Meuel, David. 2014. Women in the Films of John Ford. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co. Meyer, William R. 1979. The Making of the Great Westerns. New Rochelle, NY: Arling­ ton House. “Miami Vice Tops UK Film Chart on Debut Weekend”. 2006. Reuters, August 8. Accessed March 2, 2019 from Factiva. Milberg, Doris. 1990. Repeat Performances: A Guide to Hollywood Movie Remakes. Shelter Island, NY: Broadway Press. Miles, Ellie. 2017. “32 Terrible Movie Remakes That Are Crimes Against Film”. Alloy, November 11. Accessed June 12, 2018 from www.alloy.com/entertainment/ worst-movie-remakes/11/. “Millennials Don’t Really Care About Classic Movies”. 2017. New York Post, August 16. Accessed March 8, 2019 from https://nypost.com/2017/08/16/ millennials-dont-really-care-about-classic-movies/.

Bibliography

313

Miller, Gregory E. 2015. “Why Disney Needs to Stop Remaking All Its Mov­ ies”. New York Post, March 31. Accessed March 26, 2018 from https://nypost. com/2015/03/31/why-disney-needs-to-stop-remaking-all-its-movies/. Miller, Renata Kobetts. 2005. Recent Reinterpretations of Stevenson’s Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: Why and How this Novel Continues to Affect Us. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press. Miller, Ross. 2017. “Sleepless Is by-the-Numbers Fare Which Won’t Keep You Awake”. The National, May 5. Accessed June 12, 2018 from www.thenational. scot/news/15266225.Film_Review__Sleepless_is_by_the_numbers_fare_which_ won_t_keep_you_awake/. Mills, Brett. 2012. “ ‘American Remake – Shudder’: Online Debates About Life on Mars and ‘British-ness”. In Life on Mars: From Manchester to New York. Edited by Stephen Lacey and Ruth McElroy. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 133–144. Mingant, Nolwenn, Cecilia Tirtaine and Joël Augros. 2015. Film Marketing Into the Twenty-First Century. London: Palgrave. Minhas, Raman. 2008. “Bollywood: Globalization and the Demand for Cultural Copying”. In Cultures and Globalization: The Cultural Economy. Edited by Helmut K. Anheier and Yudhishthir Raj Isar. London: Sage Publications, 220–221. Misek, Richard. 2010. Chromatic Cinema: A History of Screen Color. Malden, MA: John Wiley. Moats, David. 2014. “Samurai of The Beholder: Kurosawa’s Legacy Reassessed”. The Quietus, September 13. Accessed June 14, 2018 from http://thequietus.com/ articles/16233-akira-kurosawa-samurai-film-overview. Moh, Lim Chang. 1999. “This One Is a. . .” The Malay Mail, May 29. Accessed Feb­ ruary 20, 2019 from Factiva. Moïsi, Dominique. 2009. The Geopolitics of Emotion: How Cultures of Fear, Humiliation, and Hope Are Reshaping the World. New York: Doubleday. Monk, Claire. 2011. Heritage Film Audiences: Period Films and Contemporary Audiences in the UK. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Moore, Clarence. 1998. “ ‘Psycho’ Doesn’t Go Off Without a Hitch”. Journal Star, December 10. Accessed April 8, 2018 from NewsBank. Moore, Rose. 2016. “12 Things You Didn’t Know About Grease”. Screen Rant, June 5. Accessed June 12, 2018 from https://screenrant.com/grease-movie-1978­ facts-trivia/. Moran, Albert. 2011. “Americanization, Hollywoodization, or English-Language Market Variation? Comparing British and American Versions of Cracker”. In American Remakes of British Television: Transformations and Mistranslations. Edited by Carlen Lavigne and Heather Marcovitch. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 35–54. Moran, Robert. 2019. “Who Are Disney’s Live-Action Remakes Even For?” The Sydney Morning Herald, July 13. Accessed July 26, 2019 from www.smh.com.au/entertain­ ment/movies/who-are-disney-s-live-action-remakes-even-for-20190711-p526bt.html. “More Ideas Reprised”. 2006. Sunday Herald Sun, May 21. Accessed June 13, 2018 from NewsBank. Morris, Brogan. 2016. “Female-Led Blockbuster Remakes Are a Good Start – But They Don’t Cut It”. Refinery29, September 23. Accessed September 17, 2017 from www. refinery29.uk/2016/09/123640/feminist-blockbuster-remakes-ghostbusters. Morrison, James. 1998. Passport to Hollywood: Hollywood Films, European Directors. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Morrow, Terry. 2005. “New on the Tube; Spooky Stories Dominate Fall TV Premieres”. Knoxville News Sentinel, September 11. Accessed March 3, 2019 from Factiva.

314 Bibliography “Movie Bits”. 2011. Albany Democrat-Herald, August 18. Accessed March 31, 2018 from NewsBank. Movshovitz, Howie. 1991. “ ‘Cape Fear’ Improves on ’62 Original”. The Denver Post, November 15. Accessed June 19, 2018 from NewsBank. Moylan, Brian. 2014a. “Luther Remake: Why Is Fox Making a Knockoff When It Can Import the Real Thing?” The Guardian, November 19. Accessed March 27, 2018 from www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2014/nov/18/ luther-succeed-where-gracepoint-failed. Moylan, Brian. 2014b. “The Curious Case of Broadchurch’s US Remake Gracepoint: Why Bother?” Guardian, October 3. Accessed September 8, 2017 from www. theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2014/oct/02/fox-gracepoint­ broadchurch-remake-why-bother. Mudhar, Raju. 2019. “Superheroes Made Shocking and Soapy”. Toronto Star, July 26. Accessed July 29, 2019 from Factiva. Muir, John Kenneth. 2000. Terror Television: American Series, 1970–1999. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Co. Muir, John Kenneth. 2007. Horror Films of the 1980s. Jefferson NC: MacFarland & Co. Mullen, Rodger. 2006. “ ‘Omen’ Isn’t Good or Bad – Just Dull”. The Fayetteville Observer, June 9. Accessed April 8, 2018 from NewsBank. Mullins, Jenna. 2015. “People Are Livid About This Jumanji Remake, and We Don’t Blame Them”. E! News, August 5. Accessed February 19, 2019 from www.eonline.com/au/news/683928/people-are-livid-about-this-jumanji­ remake-and-we-don-t-blame-them. Murdoch, Andy, Ross McGravie, Andrea Beattie, Cathy Anderson and Georgie Tom­ ich. 2012. “Stay In”. MX, February 9. Accessed February 26, 2019 from Factiva. Murphy, Kathleen Ann. 1980. Howard Hawks: An American Auteur in the Hemingway Tradition. Unpublished thesis. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International. Murray, Noel. 2018. “The 40 Greatest Movie Soundtracks of All Time”. Vulture, October 4. Accessed March 8, 2019 from www.vulture.com/2018/10/best-movie­ soundtracks-ever.html. Murray, Robin L. and Joseph K. Heumann. 2009. “Car Culture and the Transforma­ tion of the American Landscape in the Fast and the Furious”. In Ecology and Popu­ lar Film: Cinema on the Edge. Edited by Robin L. Murray and Joseph K. Heumann. Albany: State University of New York Press, 143–164. Musetto, V.A. 2011a. “Hollywood Remake’s Second-Rate”. New York Post, Octo­ ber 28. Accessed September 8, 2017 from http://nypost.com/2011/10/28/ hollywood-remakes-second-rate/. Musetto, V.A. 2011b. “Just Grin and Bear the Trolls”. New York Post, June 10. Accessed February 23, 2019 from https://nypost.com/2011/06/10/just-grin­ and-bear-the-trolls/. “My Interview with Film Director, Boaz Davidson”. 2012. PopTug, December 23. Accessed September 12, 2017 from https://poptug.com/my-interview-with-film­ director-boaz-davidson/. Myers, Danny. 2004. Construction Economics: A New Approach. New York: Spon Press. Myers, Pat. 2016. “Go for the Bad Choices; Plus ‘Citizen Kañe’ and Other Movie Titles Altered Without Changing Any Letters”. The Washington Post, October 27. Accessed February 2, 2019 from Factiva. Naremore, James. 2014. An Invention Without a Future: Essays on Cinema. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Bibliography

315

Nashawaty, Chris. 2019. “Disney’s Live-Action Remake of Aladdin Isn’t a Disaster, But the Big Question Is . . . Why?” Entertainment Weekly, May 22. Accessed July 29, 2019 from https://ew.com/movie-reviews/2019/05/22/aladdin-review/. Natale, Richard. 1994. “Why Bother to Make Remakes?” Los Angeles Times, Decem­ ber 5. Accessed February 22, 2018 from ProQuest. Neal, Meghan. 2016. “Why Are 3D Movies Still a Thing?” Vice, May 12. Accessed July 12, 2018 from https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8q8xy3/why­ are-3d-movies-still-a-thing. “New Life for an Old Favourite”. 2015. Sunday Express, April 5. Accessed Febru­ ary 28, 2019 from Factiva. “New Zealand, Home to Multiple Big Franchises, Sweetens the Deal With 25% Cash Grant”. 2018. Variety, January 5. Accessed February 10, 2019 from https:// variety.com/2018/artisans/production/new-zealand-production-incentives­ 3-1202651239/. Newby, Richard. 2019. “ ‘Lion King,’ Originality and the Backlash Against Remakes”. The Hollywood Reporter, July 20. Accessed July 29, 2019 from www.hollywoodreporter. com/heat-vision/why-lion-king-remakes-face-backlash-fans-critics-1224741. Newitz, Annalee. 2008. “The Movie That ‘The Island’ Ripped Off and Dumbed Down”. Gizmodo, June 5. Accessed April 12, 2018 from http://io9.gizmodo. com/5013677/the-movie-that-the-island-ripped-off-and-dumbed-down. Newman, Kim. 1996. “Exploitation and the Mainstream”. In The Oxford History of World Cinema. Edited by Geoffrey Nowell-Smith. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 509–515. Newman, Kim. 2014. “Illimitable Dominion”. In The Cutting Room: Dark Reflections of the Silver Screen. Edited by Ellen Datlow. San Francisco, CA: Tachyon Publications, 334–254. Nicholson, Amy. 2013. “Brian de Palma Explains How His Erotic Remake Passion Is Better Than the Original”. LA Weekly, August 29. Accessed March 29, 2018 from www.laweekly.com/film/brian-de-palma-explains-how-his-erotic-remake-passion­ is-better-than-the-original-2614892. Nissen, Axel. 2007. Forty Familiar Hollywood Faces from the Thirties to the Fifties. Jeffer­ son, NC: McFarland & Co. Nissen, Axel. 2012. Mothers, Mammies and Old Maids: Twenty-Five Character Actresses of Golden Age Hollywood. Jefferson NC: McFarland & Co. Nollen, Scott Allen. 1996. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle at the Cinema. Jefferson, NC: McFar­ land & Co. Nollen, Scott Allen. 2013. Three Bad Men: John Ford, John Wayne, Ward Bond. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co. Norman, Michael. 1990. “John Hurt: Always in Character”. The New York Times, December 2. Accessed March 2, 2019 from Factiva. Norman, Neil. 2003. “Also Showing”. The London Evening Standard, August 28. Accessed February 20, 2018 from Opposing Viewpoints in Context. “Norway’s Hit Show ‘Skam’ to be Remade for US Audience”. 2016. The Local, December 9. Accessed February 11, 2019 from www.thelocal.no/20161209/ norways-hit-show-skam-to-be-remade-for-american-audience. Novak, Matt. 2016. “The New Ghostbusters Didn’t Ruin My Childhood Because That’s Not How the Progression of Time Works”. Gizmodo, July 15. Accessed January 22, 2019 from www.gizmodo.com.au/2016/07/the-new-ghostbusters­ didnt-ruin-my-childhood-because-thats-not-how-the-progression-of-time-works/.

316 Bibliography Nowlan, Robert A. and Gwendolyn Wright Nowlan. 1989. Cinema Sequels and Remakes, 1903–1987. Chicago, IL: St James Press. Oakes, Matt. 2019. “Disney’s Lifeless ‘Aladdin’ Remake Is the Opposite of Art”. Silver Screen Riot, May 22. Accessed September 1, 2019 from https://silverscreenriot. com/disneys-lifeless-aladdin-remake-is-the-opposite-of-art/. O’Connor, John J. 1988. “Why Bother Watching a Woeful Remake?” New York Times, April 10. Accessed March 5, 2018 from www.nytimes.com/1988/04/10/movies/ tv-view-why-bother-watching-a-woeful-remake.html. O’Falt, Chris. 2018. “From ‘A Star Is Born’ to ‘The Fly’: IndieWire’s 15 Best Movie Remakes of All Time”. IndieWire, July 22. Accessed November 23, 2018 from www. indiewire.com/2018/07/best-movie-remakes-all-time- 1201986086/. Oh, Sheryl. 2019. “With a ‘Hunchback’ Remake, Disney Wants to Go Dark”. Film School Rejects, January 17. Accessed August 7, 2019 from https://filmschoolrejects. com/hunchback-live-action-remake/. Oliver, Kelly. 2016. Hunting Girls: Sexual Violence from the Hunger Games to Campus Rape. New York: Columbia University Press. O’Neil, Paul. 1970. “Clarence the Ripper?” Life, November 13, 85–88. “Original vs Remake”. 2018. Horror World & Reviews, January 4. Accessed February 12, 2019 from https://horrorworld.reviews/2018/01/04/original-vs­ remake-a-linterieur-2007-inside-2018/. Orme, Terry. 1990. “ ‘Desperate Hours’ a Disastrous Remake”. The Salt Lake Tribune, October 9. Accessed February 27, 2019 from Factiva. Orme, Terry. 1993a. “ ‘Point of No Return’ Serves Up Mere Carb . . .”. The Salt Lake Tribune, March 25. Accessed April 8, 2018 from NewsBank. Orme, Terry. 1993b. “Video Rewind: déjà vu at the Movies”. The Salt Lake Tribune, March 26. Accessed February 25, 2019 from Factiva. Orr, Christopher. 2007. “The Movie Review: ‘Spiderman 3’ ”. The Atlantic, May 3. Accessed June 12, 2018 from NewsBank. Orr, Christopher. 2018. “The Modestly Diverting Gender Swap of Ocean’s 8”. The Atlantic, June 8. Accessed July 26, 2018 from www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/ archive/2018/06/the-modestly-diverting-gender-swap-of-oceans-8/562376/. Orr, Christopher. 2019. “The Hustle Is a Lazy Gender Swap”. The Atlantic, May 10. Accessed August 6, 2019 from www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/ archive/2019/05/hustle-review-anne-hathaway-rebel-wilson/589099/. O’Sullivan, Charlotte. 2014. “Also Showing . . .”. Evening Standard, February 14. Accessed June 9, 2018 from Regional Business News. O’Sullivan, Michael. 2004. “ ‘Man on Fire’s’ Heart of Cold”. The Washington Post, April 23. Accessed June 10, 2019 from Factiva. Owen, Rob. 1995. “ ‘Village’ Is Out of Square; Cast of Sci-Fi Flicks Needs to Lighten Up – Seriously”. Richmond Times-Dispatch, April 28. Accessed April 8, 2018 from NewsBank. Owen, Rob. 2016. “Tuned In: History Remakes ‘Roots’ for Cable”. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, May 27. Accessed March 4, 2018 from www.post-gazette.com/ae/ tv-radio/2016/05/27/Tuned-In-History-remakes-Roots-for-cable/stories/ 201605270088. Oz, Mike. 2010. “Ralph Macchio Says: ‘Wax On, F*ck Off’ ”. The Fresno Bee, June 10. Accessed April 1, 2018 from NewsBank. Paatsch, Leigh. 2019. “Flicks”. Townsville Bulletin, July 6. Accessed July 29, 2019 from Factiva.

Bibliography

317

Packer, Sharon. 2007. Movies and the Modern Psyche. Westport, CT: Praeger. Panzarella, Steve. 2009. “Movie History – Six Significant Movie Modernizations: Original vs. Remake”. AMC, October. Accessed March 18, 2018 from www.amc. com/talk/2009/10/original-movies-versus-remakes. Parchesky, Jennifer. 2006. “Adapting Stella Dallas: Class Boundaries, Consumer­ ism, and Hierarchies of Taste”. Legacy: A Journal of American Women Writers, 23, 2, 178–198. Parish, James Robert. 1974. The RKO Gals. New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House. Park, Myoungsook. 2009. “Hollywood’s Remake Practices Under the Copyright Regime: French Films and Japanese Horror Films”. In Fear, Cultural Anxiety, and Transformation: Horror, Science Fiction, and Fantasy Films Remade. Edited by Scott A. Lukas and John Marmysz. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 129–142. Parker, Andrew. 2018. “Make a Day of It with Spielberg Films at TIFF Bell Lightbox”. The Gate, December 17. Accessed August 7, 2019 from www.thegate.ca/ film/037460/make-a-day-of-it-with-spielberg-films-at-tiff-bell-lightbox/. Patterson, John. 2006. “If Only . . . We Could Get Our Revenge. John Patterson Plots Payback for Rubbish American Remakes of British Classics”. The Guardian, August 26. Accessed March 15, 2018 from NewsBank. Pearce, Garth. (1991). “Duelling Swashbucklers Robin Hoods Settle for Separate Forests”. Toronto Star, March 31. Accessed July 31, 2019. Perigard, Mark A. 2013. “Cheap Knockoff; ABC’s ‘Mistresses,’ a UK Drama Remake, Isn’t Trashy Enough”. Boston Herald, June 3. Accessed March 29, 2018 from NewsBank. Perigard, Mark A. 2017. “ABC’s ‘Dancing’ Remake Gets Tripped Up”. Boston Herald, April 24. Accessed September 18, 2017 from Lexis Nexis. Perkins, Claire. 2015. “Translating the Television ‘treatment’ Genre: Be’Tipul and In Treatment”. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 29, 5, 781–794. Perkins, Claire and Constantine Verevis. 2015. “Transnational Television Remakes”. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 29, 5, 677–683. Perrotta, Anthony, 2015. “How Does ‘The Lion King’ Echo the Story of Shake­ speare’s Hamlet?” ScreenPrism, September 2. Accessed July, 2019 from http:// screenprism.com/insights/article/does-the-lion-king-show-similarities-to­ shakespeares-hamlet. Perry, Dennis R. 2017. “The Recombinant Mystery of Frankenstein: Experiments in Film Adaptation”. In The Oxford Handbook of Adaptation Studies. Edited by Thomas Leitch. New York: Oxford University Press, 137–153. Persall, Steve. 2011. “Wilted Version of Old Classic”. The St. Petersburg Times, Febru­ ary 12. Accessed March 31, 2018 from General OneFile. Pete, Joseph S. 2001. “ ‘Planet of the Apes’ a Lot of Monkey Business”. Indiana Daily Student, July 30. Accessed June 13, 2018 from NewsBank. Pfeifer, Will. 2002. “ ‘Ocean’s 11’ Improves on the Original”. Rockford Register Star, May 5. Accessed June 19, 2018 from NewsBank. Phelan, Laurence. 2010. “Film”. The Independent, November 6. Accessed Febru­ ary 26, 2019 from Factiva. Phillips, Ian. 2016. “13 Movies You Probably Didn’t Know Were Remakes”. Insider, September 23. Accessed August 6, 2019 from www.insider.com/ movies-that-are-remakes-2016-9. Pierce, David. 1997. “The Legion of the Condemned – Why American Silent Films Perished”. Film History, 9, 5–22.

318 Bibliography Pinkerton, Nick. 2016. “Rise of the Reboots”. Sight & Sound, March, 32–35. Pittenger, Frank. 2011. “DeMille, Cecil B”. In Encyclopedia of Religion and Film. Edited by Eric Michael Mazur. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 147–151. Pitts, Ciara. 2017. “The 7 Best Lesbian Romance Movies to Melt Your Icy Heart”. Movie Pilot, April 27. Accessed October 23, 2017 from https://moviepilot.com/p/ the-best-lesbian-romance-movies-to-melt-your-icy-heart/4205710. Plasketes, George. 2016. B-Sides, Undercurrents and Overtones: Peripheries to Popular in Music, 1960 to the Present. New York: Routledge. Plunkett, John. 2010. “War Declared as Upstairs, Downstairs Creator Fires First Volley at Downton Abbey”. The Guardian, December 17. Accessed April 12, 2018 from www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2010/dec/16/upstairs-downstairs­ downton-abbey-spat. Poague, Leland. 2004. Frank Capra: Interviews. Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi. Pohle, Robert W. and Douglas C. Hart. 1977. Sherlock Holmes on the Screen: The Motion Picture Adventures of the World’s Most Popular Detective. South Brunswick, NJ: A.S. Barnes. “Poltergeist Review”. 2015. Hamilton Advertiser, May 31. Accessed July 4, 2018 from NewsBank. “Popular 1980s TV Show ‘Miami Vice’ Comes to Silver Screen”. 2006. Hindustan Times, July 28. Accessed June 10, 2018 from Factiva. Porter, Edward. 2019. “Can You Teach a CGI Big Cat New Tricks?” The Sunday Times, July 21. Accessed July 28, 2019 from Factiva. “Pottering On, and On”. 2011. The Economist, July 11. Accessed July 4, 2019 from www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2011/07/11/pottering-on-and-on. Priggé, Steven. 2004. Movie Moguls Speak. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co. Puig, Claudia. “Coen Brothers do ‘True Grit’ Justice”. 2010. USA Today, Decem­ ber 22. Accessed June 10, 2019 from Factiva. Pyke, Alan. 2013. “Stray Questions About Two Befuddling 2012 Movies”. ThinkProgress, January 18. Accessed September 25, 2017 from https://thinkprogress.org/ stray-questions-about-two-befuddling-2012-movies-1794e747e128/. Queenan, Joe. 2013. “Man of Steel: does Hollywood Need Saving from Superhe­ roes?” The Guardian, 12 June. Accessed March 1, 2019 from www.theguardian. com/film/2013/jun/11/man-steel-hollywood-break-superheroes. Quinn, Anthony. 2004. “Hey Jude, Don’t Make It Bad”. The Independent, October 22. Accessed April 8, 2018 from NewsBank. Quinn, Karl. 2015. “Why Disney Is Dressing Up Its Classics”. Sydney Morning Herald, April 4. Accessed September 16, 2017 from Lexis Nexis. Rabin, Nathan. 2007. “My Year of Flops, Case File #7: All the King’s Men”. AV Club, February 15. Accessed July 12, 2018 from https://film.avclub.com/ my-year-of-flops-case-file-7-all-the-kings-men-1798210696. Rahner, Mark. 2006. “ ‘Miami Vice’: A Shadow of Its Former Self”. The Seattle Times, July 28. Accessed June 13, 2018 from NewsBank. Rajan, Amol. 2012. “Of Course America’s Version of the Inbetweeners Failed. They Don’t Do Teenage Filth Like Our Boys Do”. Independent, November 29. Accessed June 13, 2018 from www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/of-course­ americas-version-of-the-inbetweeners-failed-they-dont-do-teenage-filth-like-our­ boys-do-8368869.html.

Bibliography

319

Randle, Chris. 2013. “What’s Old Is New: Autorevivalism, From Hernandez to Haneke”. Hazlitt, December 13. Accessed March 14, 2018 from https://hazlitt. net/blog/whats-old-new-autorevivalism-hernandez-haneke. Rapold, Nicolas. 2011. “A Director’s Toughest Competition”. New York Times, March 11. Accessed July 2, 2018 from www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/movies/ auto-remakes-directors-series-at-anthology-film-archives.html. Raw, Laurence. 2006. Adapting Henry James to the Screen: Gender, Fiction, and Film. Lan­ ham, MD: The Scarecrow Press. Rawitsch, Elizabeth. 2015. Frank Capra’s Eastern Horizons: American Identity and the Cinema of International Relations. London: I.B. Tauris. Rayner, Jonathan. 2013. The Cinema of Michael Mann: Vice and Vindication. London: Wallflower Press. “A Re-Formed ‘Blob’ Jells Into a Scary Remake of a Cult Hit”. 1988. Sacramento Bee, August 5. Accessed March 31, 2018 from NewsBank. Reinholtz, Erin. 2013. “Demille, Cecil B”. In 100 Entertainers Who Changed America: An Encyclopedia of Pop Culture Luminaries. Edited by Robert C. Sickels. Santa Bar­ bara, CA: Greenwood, 161–168. “Remake of ‘Fame’ Is a Dumbed Down Version”. 2009. The Bulletin, September 25. Accessed March 10, 2018 from www.bendbulletin.com/slideshows/1533936-151/ remake-of-fame-is-a-dumbed-down-version. Renner, Karen J. 2016. Evil Children in the Popular Imagination. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. “Return to the Fold”. 2004. The Irish Times, May 8. Accessed June 10, 2019 from Factiva. “Rewinding 2003’s Top Films”. 2003. The Japan Times, December 24. Accessed Febru­ ary 25, 2019 from Factiva. Rice, Christina. 2013. Ann Dvorak: Hollywood’s Forgotten Rebel. Lexington, KY: Univer­ sity Press of Kentucky. Rickey, Carrie. 2006. “He’s Baa-a-a-a-ck”. The Philadelphia Inquirer, June 6. Accessed March 31, 2018 from NewsBank. Riegler, Thomas. 2014. “ ‘Mirroring Terror’: The Impact on 9/11 on Hollywood Cinema”. Imaginations, 5, 2, 103–119. Ringel, Eleanor. 1999. “Some Remakes Just Don’t Make It”. Milwaukee Journal Senti­ nel, January 8. Accessed April 12, 2018 from NewsBank. Robbins, Jane. 2000. “Hollywood Plays It Safe by Remaking Old Classics”. Inde­ pendent, October 25. Accessed March 18, 2018 from www.independent.co.uk/ arts-entertainment/films/news/hollywood-plays-it-safe-by-remaking-old­ classics-638170.html. “Robert Redford Doesn’t Want Remakes of His Movies”. 2016. Yahoo!, July 22. Accessed February 23, 2019 from www.yahoo.com/entertainment/robert­ redford-doesnt-want-remakes-of-his-movies-205107039.html. Roberts, Jerry. 2009. Encyclopedia of Television Film Directors. Lanham MD: The Scare­ crow Press. Robertson, Selina. 2018. “10 Great American Lesbian Films”. BFI, August 16. Accessed September 24, 2018 from www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/news-bfi/ lists/10-great-american-lesbian-films. Robinson, Juneko J. 2009. “Immanent Attack: An Existential Take on The Invasion of the Body Snatchers Films”. In Fear, Cultural Anxiety, and Transformation: Horror, Science

320 Bibliography Fiction, and Fantasy Films Remade. Edited by Scott A. Lukas and John Marmysz. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 22–44. Robinson, Regina. 2004. “And the Oscar Goes To . . . You’ll Have to Wait Until Feb . . .”. Chicago Tribune, February 6. Accessed September 14, 2017 from http:// articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-02-06/entertainment/0402060450_1_ star-paul-giamatti-american-splendor/4. Roche, David. 2014. Making and Remaking Horror in the 1970s and 2000s: Why Don’t They Do It Like They Used To? Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi. “Rock-Hard Action Has Plenty of Hart”. 2018. The Dominion Post, April 17. Accessed February 25, 2018 from Factiva. Rodriguez, Ashley. 2017. “The Reign of 3D Is Over in US Cinemas”. Quartz, July 27. Accessed July 12, 2018 from https://qz.com/1039936/imax-says-no-too-the -reign-of-3d-movies-is-over-in-us-cinemas/. Rohan, Virginia. 2005. “The World Ends Not with a Bang But a Miniseries”. The Record, October 30. Accessed March 31, 2018 from NewsBank. Rolls, Alistair and Deborah Walker. 2009. French and American Noir: Dark Crossings. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Roman, James W. 2009. Bigger Than Blockbusters: Movies That Defined America. West­ port, CT: Greenwood Press. Rose, Brian A. 1996. Jekyll and Hyde Adapted: Dramatizations of Cultural Anxiety. West­ port, CT: Greenwood Press. Rosenberg, Alyssa. 2011. “ ‘Being Human’: Syfy Remakes a British Hit”. The Atlantic, January 24. Accessed March 29, 2018 from www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/ archive/2011/01/being-human-syfy-remakes-a-british-hit/70025/. Rosenthal, Daniel. 2000. Shakespeare on Screen. London: Hamlyn. Rosenthal, Dave. 2012. “Total Recall Remake: Why Bother?” The Baltimore Sun, April 2. Accessed March 5, 2018 from www.baltimoresun.com/bal-total-recall­ remake-why-bother-20120402-story.html. Rosewarne, Lauren. 2013. American Taboo: The Forbidden Words, Unspoken Rules, and Secret Morality of Popular Culture. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. Rosewarne, Lauren. 2016a. Cyberbullies, Cyberactivists, Cyberpredators: Film, TV, and Internet Stereotypes. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. Rosewarne, Lauren. 2016b. “In Celebration of Ragtag Posses”. The Conversa­ tion, February 7. Accessed July 31, 2019 from https://theconversation.com/ in-celebration-of-ragtag-posses-48585. Rosewarne, Lauren. 2016c. Intimacy on the Internet: Media Representation of Online Con­ nections. New York: Routledge. Rosewarne, Lauren. 2018a. Analyzing Christmas in Film: Santa to the Supernatural. Lan­ ham, MD: Lexington Books. Rosewarne, Lauren. 2018b. “The Problem Is, Americans Just Don’t Care Enough”. The Sydney Morning Herald, October 13. Accessed August 8, 2019 from www.smh. com.au/world/north-america/the-problem-is-americans-just-don-t-care-enough­ 20181012-p509ab.html. Rosewarne, Lauren. 2019a. Sex and Sexuality in Modern Screen Remakes. New York: Palgrave. Rosewarne, Lauren. 2019b. “Tales Tall and True at the Oscars”. Meanjin, February 22. Accessed March 23, 2019 from https://meanjin.com.au/blog/tales-tall-and-true­ at-the-oscars/.

Bibliography

321

Rosewarne, Lauren. 2019c. “The Socioeconomics of a Black Ariel”. Medium, July 9. Accessed July 11, 2019 from https://medium.com/@laurenrosewarne/ the-socioeconomics-of-a-black-ariel-7c661cda28f. Rosewarne, Lauren. 2019d. “On Writing, On ‘Yesterday’ ”. Medium, July 1. Accessed August 6, 2019 from https://medium.com/@laurenrosewarne/on-writing­ on-yesterday-d41a34c78e04. Rosewarne, Lauren. 2019e. “The Princess Bride and the Remaking of Sacred Cows”. Meanjin, September 24. Accessed September 27, 2019 from https://meanjin. com.au/blog/the-princess-bride-and-the-remaking-of-hollywoods-sacred-cows/. Ross, Scott. 2011. “ ‘The Killer’ Getting Americanized in 3D, Try Not to Be Sad”. NBC San Diego, February 1. Accessed February 11, 2019 from www.nbcsand­ iego.com/blogs/popcornbiz/The-Killer-Getting-Americanized-Try-Not-to­ Be-Sad-115021259.html. Rothwell, Kenneth S. 1999. A History of Shakespeare on Screen: A Century of Film and Television. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Roush, Josh. 2016. “14 Movie Remakes That Are Better Than the Original”. ScreenRant, July 14. Accessed November 23, 2018 from https://screenrant. com/ remakes-better-than-original/. Roush, Matt. 1999. “Cable’s Rotten Rip-Offs; Hitchcock Remakes Are for the Birds”. USA Today, March 17. Accessed March 31, 2018 from NewsBank. Routledge, Clay. 2016. Nostalgia: A Psychological Resource. New York: Routledge. Rowles, Dustin. 2011. “The Most Insulting, Offensive Remake Casting Choices of All Time”. Pajiba, June 22. Accessed February 19, 2019 from www.pajiba.com/ seriously_random_lists/the-10-most-insulting-offensive-remake-casting-choices­ of-all-time.php. Roy Zone. 2014. Stereoscopic Cinema and the Origins of 3-D Film, 1838–1952. Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky. Ruimy, Jordan. 2019. “Can ‘Dumbo’ Be Tim Burton’s Artistic Comeback?” World of Reel, March 14. Accessed July 29, 2019 from www.worldofreel.com/blog/2019/3/ can-dumbo-be-tim-burtons-comeback-vehicle. Rupra, Sneh. 2019. “The Lion King Review – Even Beyonce Couldn’t Save This Soul­ less Remake”. Outtake, July 18. Accessed August 6, 2019 from http://outtakemag. co.uk/reviews/2019/07/18/the-lion-king-review-beyonce-soulless/. Russell, Candice. 1993. “Remake Has Feeling of Warmed-Over Fare; Born Yester­ day”. Sun-Sentinel, March 26. Accessed April 21, 2018 from NewsBank. Russell, Jamie. 2002. “Swimfan”. BBC, September 17. Accessed September 14, 2017 from www.bbc.co.uk/films/2002/09/02/swimfan_2002_review.shtml. Ryan, Danielle. 2015. “10 Great Foreign Films with Horrible U.S. Remakes”. Paste Magazine, February 24. Accessed March 10, 2018 from www.pastemagazine.com/ articles/2015/02/10-great-foreign-films-with-horrible-us-remakes.html. Salas, Randy A. 2009. “Back to ‘Friday the 13th’; An Uncut Version of the Origi­ nal 1980 Slasher Film Is Among the New DVDs Cashing in on the Craze Over Remakes”. Star Tribune, February 8. Accessed February 19, 2019 from General OneFile. Salt, Barry. 2016. “The Exact Remake: A Statistical Style Analysis of Six Hollywood Films”. New Review of Film and Television Studies, 14, 4, 467–486. San Juan, Eric. 2018. Akira Kurosawa: A Viewer’s Guide. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

322 Bibliography Sanderson, Monday. 2016. “Consumers Cause Lack of Originality in Hollywood”. UWire, September 23. Accessed February 25, 2019 from Factiva. Sanjek, David. 2001. “The Ten Commandments”. The Guide to United States Popular Culture. Edited by Ray Broadus Browne and Pat Browne. Madison, WI: The Uni­ versity of Wisconsin Press, 832–833. Saporito, Jeff. 2016. “Why Do American Adaptations of British Shows Often Fail?” ScreenPrism, August 31. Accessed March 10, 2018 from http://screenprism.com/ insights/article/why-do-american-networks-adapt-so-many-british-tv-shows. Sardar, Ziauddin and Merryl Wyn Davies. 2002. Why Do People Hate America? New York: The Disinformation Company. Sarris, Andrew. 2005. “In the Belly of the Beast: Who’s to Blame for Ugly Woods­ man?” New York Observer, January 31. Accessed March 12, 2019 from Factiva. “Satan Met a Lady”. 1935. Variety, December 31. Accessed March 22, 2018 from http://variety.com/1935/film/reviews/satan-met-a-lady-1200411185/. “Satellite Films”. 2015. Irish Mail on Sunday, May 24. Accessed March 2, 2019 from Factiva. “Satellite Pick of the Day”. 2007. Scottish Daily Record, April 7. Accessed February 20, 2018 from Factiva. Scahill, Andrew. 2016. “Serialized Killers: Prebooting Horror in Bates Motel and Han­ nibal”. In Cycles, Sequels, Spin-Offs, Remakes and Reboots: Multiplicities in Film & Televi­ sion. Edited by Amanda Ann Klein and R. Barton Palmer. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 316–334. Schaefer, Glen. 2006. “LaBute the Man for Controversy: Director Feels Heat for Remaking Beloved British Cult Horror Film”. Calgary Herald, August 31. Accessed February 25, 2019 from Factiva. Scheer, Ronald. 1980. “Doublevision: TV Remakes Frank Capra”. Journal of Popular Film & Television 8, 2, 28–33. Schembri, Jim. 1994. “Necessity the Mother of All Remakes”. The Age, May 13. Accessed February 25, 2019 from Factiva. Schembri, Jim. 2011. “Now Showing” The Age, August 26. Accessed February 20, 2019 from Factiva. Schilling, Dave. 2018. “Every Time Hollywood Made the ‘Black Version’ of a Suc­ cessful Movie”. Vulture, February 16. Accessed March 31, 2018 from www.vulture. com/2018/02/every-time-hollywood-made-the-black-version-of-a-hit-movie. html. Schoettle, Jane. 1990. “Bette Bombs Big in Stella But House Party’s a Gas”. The Globe and Mail, September 29. Accessed February 19, 2019 from Factiva. Scholz, Anne-Marie. 2017. “The Fortunes of Jane Austen as Chick Lit and Chick Flick”. In Adaptation, Awards Culture, and the Value of Prestige. Edited by Colleen Kennedy-Karpat and Eric Sandberg. Cham: Palgrave, 133–150. Schwartzkoff, Louise. 2010. “TV Previews”. The Sydney Morning Herald, August 2. Accessed March 9, 2019 from Factiva. Schwedel, Heather. 2017. “The New Dirty Dancing Remake Is Dirty and Contains Dancing, But That’s Where the Similarities End”. Slate, May 25. Accessed March 1, 2019 from https://slate.com/culture/2017/05/abc-s-dirty-dancing-remake­ starring-abigail-breslin-reviewed.html. Schweishelm, Kathryn. 2012. “Remaking The Stepford Wives, Remodeling Feminism”. In Film Remakes, Adaptations and Fan Productions. Edited by Kathleen Loock and Constantine Verevis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 107–121.

Bibliography

323

Scott, A.O. 2009. “Open-Wide: Spoon-Fed Cinema”. The New York Times, August 9. Accessed February 15, 2019 from Factiva. Scott, Jay. 1985. “Reiner’s Failure Is a Pure Thing”. The Globe and Mail, March 1. Accessed February 20, 2019 from Factiva. Scott, Mendelson. 2013. “ ‘The Hangover 3’ vs. ‘Fast & Furious 6’ in Summer 2013’s Dumbest Movie Face-Off”. Forbes, April 12. Accessed June 12, 2018 from www. forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2013/04/12/the-hangover-3-vs-fast-furious­ 6-in-summer-2013s-dumbest-movie-face-off/#2d8e1516199b. “Scrooged (Movie, 1988)”. 1997. The Newcastle Herald, December 19. Accessed March 31, 2018 from NewsBank. “Sean Connery Dismounts in Film for Half a Million Dollars”. 1991. Reuters, June 13. Accessed July 31, 2019 from Factiva. Seavor, Jim. 1993. “Born Yesterday? You’ll Like This Movie”. Providence Journal, March 26. Accessed March 27, 2018 from NewsBank. Sepinwall, Alan. 2012. The Revolution Was Televised: The Cops, Crooks, Slingers, and Slay­ ers Who Changed TV Forever. New York: Touchstone. Serba, John. 2013. “ ‘Evil Dead’ Is Fiendishly Funny and Unapologetically Gory Remake of Cult Classic”. The Flint Journal, April 5. Accessed March 30, 2018 from NewsBank. Seymour, Gene. 2006. “Seeing Hills Are Alive – with Requisite Mutants”. Newsday, March 10. Accessed March 30, 2018 from NewsBank. Shales, Tom. 1988. “There’s Just One Hitch”. The Washington Post, April 20. Accessed February 19, 2019 from Factiva. Sharp, Luke and Liz Giuffre. 2013. “Prisoner Reborn with Wentworth”. Metro Magazine, 178, September, 24–26. Shennan, Paddy. 2009. “Minder Lite Show”. Liverpool Echo, February 7. Accessed April 8, 2018 from NewsBank. Shepard, Lucius. 2007. “Something Wicker This Way Comes”. Fantasy & Science Fic­ tion, 112, 1, 124–129. Shepherd, Duncan. Undated. San Diego Reader. Accessed July 11, 2019 from https://m.sandiegoreader.com/movies/mutiny-on-the-bounty/. Shoard, Catherine. 2016. “Ghostbusters Trailer Is Most Disliked in YouTube His­ tory”. The Guardian, May 3. Accessed January 22, 2019 from www.theguardian. com/film/2016/may/02/ghostbusters-trailer-most-disliked-in-youtube-history. “Should Hollywood Leave Classic Films Alone?” 2010. Kalamazoo Gazette, Septem­ ber 25. Accessed March 30, 2018 from NewsBank. Sigoloff, Marc. 2006. “Halloween Remakes; Tinseltown Busily Churns Out New Ver­ sions of Classic Horror Flicks”. Illinois Times, October 24. Accessed April 8, 2018 from NewsBank. Sim, Stuart. 2001. “Retro”. In The Routledge Companion to Postmodernism. Edited by Stuart Sim. New York: Routledge, 297. Simic´, Luka. 2017. “10 Famous Movies You Probably Didn’t Know Were Remakes”. Taste of Cinema, May 12. Accessed August 6, 2019 from www.tasteofcinema. com/2017/10-famous-movies-you-probably-didnt-know-were-remakes/. Simmons, Lesley. 2008. “Q&A: Laura Ziskin”. The Hollywood Reporter, Septem­ ber 2. Accessed February 22, 2019 from www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ qa-laura-ziskin-118451. Simon, Jeff. 1995. “Tough Love”. Buffalo News, April 20. Accessed March 2, 2019 from Factiva.

324 Bibliography Simon, Jeff. 2017. “The Summer Movies I Really Want to See”. Gusto, June 20. Accessed September 13, 2017 from http://buffalonews.com/2017/06/19/ jeff-simon-summer-movies-really-want-see/. Simonpillai, Radheyan. 2011. “Footloose”. NOW Toronto, October 13. Accessed March 12, 2019 from https://nowtoronto.com/movies/reviews/footloose/. Simpson, K.T. 2019. “The Hustle Review: Uninspiring and Unfunny”. Moviehole, May 9, 2019. Accessed June 16, 2019 from https://moviehole.net/ the-hustle-review-uninspiring-and-unfunny/. Sims, Robert L. 2012. “ ‘The Silent Thief’ Lacks a Unique Personality”. Palm Beach Daily News, April 13. Accessed February 20, 2019 from Factiva. Singer, Leigh. “Whenever It Co-Opts Foreign-Language Films, Hollywood Is Typi­ cally Cast as the Great Corruptor of Pure World Cinema”. Independent, Febru­ ary 22, 2008. Accessed September 7, 2017 from www.independent.co.uk/ arts-entertainment/films/features/what-drives-a-director-to-remake-their-own­ film-785207.html. Singh, Olivia. 2019. “ ‘Lizzie McGuire’ Is Getting a Reboot 18 Years After the Original Show Premiered. Here’s Everything We Know So Far”. Insider, August 28, 2019. Accessed August 29, 2019 from www.insider.com/lizzie-mcguire-reboot­ disney-plus-details-2019-8. Siskel, Gene. 1993. “ ‘Point of No Return’ All Star Power, No Substance”. Chicago Tribune, March 19. Accessed February 9, 2019 from www.chicagotribune.com/ news/ct-xpm-1993-03-19-9303200367-story.html. Skvirsky, Salomé Aguilera. 2008. “The Price of Heaven: Remaking Politics in All That Heaven Allows, Ali: Fear Eats the Soul, and Far from Heaven”. Cinema Journal, 47, 3, 90–121. Slide, Anthony. 1996. De Toth on De Toth: Putting the Drama in Front of the Camera. London: Faber and Faber. Smith, Don G. 2002. H.G. Wells on Film: The Utopian Nightmare. Jefferson, NC: McFar­ land & Co. Smith, Gary Allen. 2004. Epic Films: Casts, Credits and Commentary on More Than 350 Historical Spectacle Movies. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co. Smith, Iain Robert and Constantine Verevis. 2017. “Introduction: Transnational Film Remakes”. In Transnational Film Remakes. Edited by Iain Robert Smith and Constantine Verevis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1–20. Smith, Michael. 2017. “Movie Rewind: ‘Ben-Hur’ Is Pointless Remake”. Tulsa World, September 7. Accessed March 17, 2018 from NewsBank. Smith, Molly. 2012. “From Bonds to Bournes to Batman, It’s All About the Stars in Charge”. Postmedia, August 21. Accessed March 2, 2019 from Factiva. Smith, Nigel M. 2016. “Jodie Foster: ‘I think this is the most risk-averse period in movie history’ ”. The Guardian, May 13. Accessed February 22, 2019 from www.theguard ian.com/film/2016/may/12/jodie-foster-cannes-money-monster-film-hollywood. Sneider, Jeff. 2012. “IFC Midnight Acquires ‘Maniac’; Elijah Wood Stars in Franck Khalfoun’s Horror Pic”. Variety, August 23. Accessed March 3, 2019 from Factiva. Solomons, Jason. 2008. “The Women”. The Guardian, September 14. Accessed April 1, 2018 from www.theguardian.com/film/2008/sep/14/drama1. “Sound Film Remakes of Silent Films”. Undated. Wikipedia. Accessed July 10, 2018 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sound_film_remakes_of_silent_films. Speed, F. Maurice and James Cameron-Wilson. 1997. Film Review 1997–98. London: Virgin Books.

Bibliography

325

Spotnitz, Frank. 2005. “Conjuring the Ghost of Kolchak Past”. TV Guide, October 6. Accessed January 28, 2019 from www.tvguide.com/news/premiere-stalker­ abc-38702/. Stanbrook, Alan. 2011. “DVD of the Week”. The Sunday Telegraph, April 24. Accessed March 15, 2018 from NewsBank. Stanley, John. 1988. “Chuck Russell Monster Movie; ‘The Blob’ Slithers Back in Scary Remake”. The San Francisco Chronicle, July 31. Accessed March 31, 2018 from NewsBank. Stasia, Cristina Lucia. 2014. “ ‘These Aren’t Your Mother’s Angels’: Feminism, Jiggle Television, and Charlie’s Angels”. In Remake Television: Reboot, Re-Use, Recycle. Edited by Carlen Lavigne. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 113–130. Steemers, Jeanette. 2004. Selling Television: British Television in the Global Marketplace. London: British Film Institute. Steemers, Jeanette. 2011. “British Television in the American Marketplace”. In American Remakes of British Television: Transformations and Mistranslations. Edited by Carlen Lavigne and Heather Marcovitch. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 1–16. Stenport, Anna Westerståhl and Garrett Traylor. 2015. “The Eradication of Memory: Film Adaptations and Algorithms of the Digital”. Cinema Journal, 55, 1, 74–94. “Stephen King’s Horror Classic Gets an Unnecessarily Gory Remake More Blood, Wasted”. 2013. The Free Lance Star, October 23. Accessed March 30, 2018 from NewsBank. Stevens, Christopher. 2017. “Why Is Hollywood Hooked on Remakes?” Daily Mail, August 28, 26. Stewart, Dodai. 2011. “Steel Magnolias Remake Will Have All-Black Cast”. Jezebel, October 12. Accessed September 7, 2017 from https://jezebel.com/5849007/ steel-magnolias-remake-will-have-all-black-cast. “Still Playing”. 2006. Fort Worth Business Press, March 20. Accessed April 7, 2018 from NewsBank. Stockdale, Charles and Shahnaz Mahmud. 2018. “25 Best TV Shows Getting Rebooted”. MSN Entertainment, November 5. Accessed February 5, 2019 from www.msn.com/en-us/tv/gallery/25-best-tv-shows-getting-rebooted/ss-BBPnJCe. Stone, Jay. 2005. “A Most Wonky Wonka”. The Ottawa Citizen, July 15. Accessed Febru­ ary 25, 2019 from Factiva. “Stop Hating Remakes – You Love Them”. 2016. Mega Nerd Media, August 4. Accessed April 12, 2018 from www.meganerdmedia.com/film/2016/8/4/the-case-for­ remakes-and-why-hating-on-them-is-stupid. Stratton, David. 2004. “Scary Remake Short on Risk”. The Australian, November 20. Accessed March 31, 2017 from Newspaper Source Plus. Stratton, David. 2012. “Soft Focus on a Mature Relationship”. The Australian, August 24. Accessed February 23, 2019 from Factiva. Strauss, Bob. 2014. “Angelina Jolie, Elle Fanning Talk ‘Maleficent,’ Disney’s Darker, Scarier Remake of ‘Sleeping Beauty’ ”. LA.com, May 29. Accessed March 30, 2018 from NewsBank. Strecker, Erin. 2013. “I’m Still Not Over . . . the Ending Switch in ‘My Sister’s Keeper’ ”. Entertainment Weekly, December 16. Accessed July 20, 2019 from https:// ew.com/article/2013/12/16/im-still-not-over-my-sisters-keeper/. Streeter, Leslie Gray. 2018. “ ‘Dirty Dancing’ TV Remake Has a Problem: It’s Not Dirty Enough”. Palm Beach Post, May 22. Accessed September 17, 2018 from Lexis Nexis.

326 Bibliography Street-Porter, Janet. 2005. “The Banality of American Popular Culture”. Independ­ ent, January 6. Accessed March 27, 2018 from www.independent.co.uk/voices/col umnists/janet-street-porter/the-banality-of-american-popular-culture-17984.html. Strick, Philip. 2003. “Solaris”. Sight and Sound, 13, 3. March, 54–55. Striga, Danijel. 2015. “12 Best Movie Remakes of All Time”. ScreenRant, Decem­ ber 25. Accessed July 29, 2019 from https://screenrant.com/best-movie­ remakes-all-time/. Stuever, Hank. 2014. “ ‘Gracepoint’: Nice, But the Cloning’s Gotten Cloying”. The Washington Post, October 2. Accessed February 11, 2019 from Regional Business News. Suderman, Peter. 2016. “Why Hollywood Keeps Coming Back to Seven Samurai”. Vox, September26. Accessed March27, 2018 from www.vox.com/2016/9/26/13024144/ magnificent-seven-samurai-hollywood-remakes. Syme, Rachel. 2016. “Confessions of a Teen Star”. The Sunday Times, October 23. Accessed March 2, 2019 from Factiva. Tatspaugh, Patricia. 2007. “The Tragedies of Love on Film”. In The Cambridge Com­ panion to Shakespeare on Film. Edited by Russell Jackson. New York: Cambridge University Press, 141–166. Taylor, Kate. 2016. “The Jungle Book: Visually Stunning Drama a Dark Remake of Disney Classic”. The Globe and Mail, April 15. Accessed June 13, 2018 from www. theglobeandmail.com/arts/film/film-reviews/the-jungle-book-visually-stunning­ drama-a-dark-remake-of-disney-classic/article29632335/. Teng, Elaine. 2016. “On TV and at the Movies, Subtitles Welcome Here”. New Repub­ lic, February 15. Accessed September 8, 2017 from https://newrepublic.com/ article/129869/tv-movies-subtitles-welcome. Terry, Josh. 2014. “Walker Deserves Better Than ‘Brick Mansions’ ”. Deseret News, April 25. Accessed February 23, 2019 from Factiva. Thomas, Kevin. 1995. “ ‘Village’ a Slick, Scary Allegory”. Los Angeles Times, April 28. Accessed March 31, 2018 from NewsBank. Thompson, Bill. 2005. “Remakes Adaptations Sequels 2005; Flurries of Freshness Struggle to Offset Big Studio Clones and Formula Films”. The Post and Courier, January 23. Accessed April 12, 2018 from NewsBank. Thompson, Derek. 2014. “The Reason Why Hollywood Makes So Many Boring Super­ hero Movies”. The Atlantic, May 13. Accessed July 3, 2019 from www.theatlantic.com/ entertainment/archive/2014/05/hollywoods-real-superhero-problem/370785/. Thompson, Derek. 2016. “Hollywood Has a Huge Millennial Problem”. The Atlan­ tic, June 8. Accessed February 18, 2019 from www.theatlantic.com/business/ archive/2016/06/hollywood-has-a-huge-millennial-problem/486209/. Thompson, Kevin D. 1998. “Good TV on Saturday Night? You Bet!” The Palm Beach Post, September 26. Accessed March 3, 2019 from Factiva. Thompson, Zac. 2017. “Remembering the J-Horror Craze of the Early 2000s”. Vice, February 4. Accessed February 9, 2019 from www.vice.com/en_us/article/ wnzzmz/why-we-were-so-obsessed-with-japanese-horror-remakes. Thorne, Roland. 2010. Samurai Films. Harpenden: Oldcastle Books. “TOH! Ranks the Films of the Coen Brothers from Worst to Best”. 2016. IndieWire. February 3. Accessed March 28, 2018 from www.indiewire.com/2016/02/ toh-ranks-the-films-of-the-coen-brothers-from-worst-to-best-175092/. Tookey, Christopher. 2006. “Lost in the Fog”. Evening Standard, February 24. Accessed March 18, 2018 from www.standard.co.uk/go/london/film/lost-in-the­ fog-7386822.html.

Bibliography

327

Tookey, Christopher. 2011. “Why This Remake Gets Both Barrels: Forty Years on from the Original Straw Dogs, This Dumbed-Down New Version Is Just an Excuse for Mindless Violence”. Daily Mail, November 4. Accessed March 10, 2018 from www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-2057375/Straw-Dogs-Why­ remake-gets-barrels.html. Tookey, Christopher. 2012. “Bring Back Arnie! Remake of Sci-Fi Classic Total Recall Is Totally Forgettable”. Daily Mail, August 31. Accessed March 10, 2018 from www. dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-2195984/Total-Recall-review-Bring­ Arnie-Remake-sci-fi-classic-totally-forgettable.html. Tookey, Christopher. 2013. “Big Guns Fire Blanks: Not Even Stars Mark Wahlberg and Denzel Washington Can Save This Dumbed-Down Remake of a Walter Mat­ thau Comedy Classic”. Daily Mail, August 13. Accessed March 10, 2018 from www. dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2394891/2-Guns-review-Big-guns-blanks-Not­ stars-Mark-Wahlberg-Denzel-Washington-save-dumbed-remake-Walter-Matthau­ comedy-classic.html. Toppman, Lawrence. 2006. “Will Spring Bring Us Movie Bombs? Prospects Look Slim Amid Remakes, Sequels and Blather”. The Charlotte Observer, February 3. Accessed March 10, 2018 from NewsBank. Torcato, Ronita. 2019a. “Film: Pet Sematary”. Free Press Journal, April 12. Accessed August 8, 2019 from Factiva. Torcato, Ronita. 2019b. “Hellboy: Review, Cast, Director”. Free Press Journal, April 12. Accessed August 8, 2019 from Factiva. “Total Recall Not One to Remember”. 2012. Sunday Business Post, September 2. Accessed February 20, 2019 from Factiva. Toth, Katie. 2015. “Toronto is Hollywood’s Go-To City for That Real New York Feel”. The Village Voice, January 22. Accessed February 10, 2019 from www.villagevoice. com/2015/01/22/toronto-is-hollywoods-go-to-city-for-that-real-new-york-feel/. Toumarkine, Doris. 2006. “Made in France, Remade in America”. Film Journal International, June 23. Accessed March 26, 2018 from www.filmjournal.com/ made-france-remade-america. Travers, Peter. 1998. “Meet Joe Black”. Rolling Stone, November 13. Accessed July 16, 2018 fromwww.rollingstone.com/movies/movie-reviews/meet-joe-black-116545/. Travers, Peter. 2018a. “ ‘Mary Poppins Returns’ Review: Too Many Spoonfuls of Sugar”. Rolling Stone, December 18. Accessed February 3, 2019 from www.rolling­ stone.com/movies/movie-reviews/mary-poppins-returns-movie-review-760945/. Travers, Peter. 2018b. “ ‘Papillion’ Review: Despair Tough to Escape in Remake of Prison Epic”. Rolling Stone, August 22. Accessed February 26, 2019 from www. rollingstone.com/movies/movie-reviews/papillon-movie-review-713126/. Travers, Peter. 2019. “ ‘Aladdin’: Will Smith is the Live-Action Movie’s Best Special Effect”. Rolling Stone, May 22. Accessed August 7, 2019 from www.rollingstone. com/movies/movie-reviews/aladdin-disney-will-smith-movie-review-835646/. Troost, Linda and Sayre N. Greenfield. 2001. Jane Austen in Hollywood. Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky. Tseng, Ada. 2017. “For Some in Hollywood, the ‘Remake’ Is Taking on Global Proportions”. PRI, August 18. Accessed February 14, 2019 from www.pri.org/ stories/2017-08-18/some-hollywood-remake-taking-global-proportions. Tucker, Reed. 2016. “Reboots, Remakes, Spinoffs: Here’s What Hollywood Means by These BS Terms”. New York Post, March 17. Accessed June 12, 2018 from https:// nypost.com/2016/03/17/reboots-remakes-spinoffs-heres-what-hollywood­ means-by-these-bs-terms/.

328 Bibliography Tuckett, Graeme. 2018a. “Creed II Beats the Sequel Odds”. Marlborough Express, December 15. Accessed June 10, 2019 from Factiva. Tuckett, Graeme. 2018b. “Skyscraper Offers Rock-Solid Fun”. Marlborough Midweek, July 26. Accessed June 10, 2019 from Factiva. Turan, Kenneth. 2015. “ ‘Tomorrowland’ Reaches Too Far, in Too Many Directions”. Los Angeles Times, May 21. Accessed www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/ la-et-mn-tomorrowland-review-20150522-column.html. Turnbull, Sue. 2015. “Trafficking in TV Crime: Remaking Broadchurch”. Contin­ uum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 29, 5, 706–717. “Turtles Repowered”. 2007. Waikato Times, April 12. Accessed August 6, 2019 from Factiva. Tuttle, Brittani. 2015. “ ‘Cinderella’: A Classic Tale Revived”. UWire, March 31. Accessed February 28, 2019 from Factiva. “TV: Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)”. 2003. South Wales Echo, May 2. Accessed March 31, 2018 from NewsBank. Twitchell. James B. 1997. For Shame: The Loss of Common Decency in American Culture. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin. “Two Visits to 1977”. 2019. Noticias Financieras, January 12. Accessed June 10, 2019 from Factiva. “Uninspired Remake of Hitchcock’s Suspicion Brittle Drama Crumbles in the End”. 1988. Globe & Mail, April 19. Accessed March 31, 2018 from Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Valdespino, Anne. 1992. “When Film Remakes Strike It Big, Originals Sell in Video Stores”. The Orange County Register, January 15. Accessed February 23, 2019 from Factiva. Vallance, Tom. 1997. “Obituary: Red Skelton”. Independent, September 19. Accessed September 1, 2019 from www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/obituary-red­ skelton-1239921.html. Vanderschelden, Isabelle. 2016. “The French Film Industry: Funding, Policies, Debates”. Studies in French Cinema, 16, 2, 89–94. VanDerWerff, Todd. 2016. “Superhero Movies Have Become an Endless Attempt to Rewrite 9/11”. Vox, May 19. Accessed March 21, 2019 from www.vox. com/2015/5/19/8577803/avengers-age-of-ultron-review-politics. Varndell, Daniel. 2014. Hollywood Remakes, Deleuze and the Grandfather Paradox. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Venable, Malcolm. 2017. “Dirty Dancing: ABC’s ’80s Reboot Feels Out of Step in 2017”. TV Guide, May 23. Accessed September 17, 2017 from www.tvguide.com/ news/dirty-dancing-remake-review/. Verevis, Constantine. 2006. Film Remakes. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Verniere, James. 2005. “Plain ‘Jane’ Should Have More Fun; Fun with Dick and Jane”. The Weston Town Crier, December 22. Accessed March 31, 2018 from NewsBank. Verniere, James. 2010. “This Bites; Weak ‘Wolfman’ a Why-Bother Remake”. The Boston Herald, February 12. Accessed March 5, 2018 from General OneFile. Vicari, David. 2018. “Film Review: Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom”. Where Y’at, June 25. Accessed February 4, 2019 from www.whereyat.com/flim-review­ emjurassic-world-fallen-kingdom/em. Vishnevetsky, Ignatiy. 2016. “The Magnificent Seven Gets an Uninspired Remake”. AV Club, September 22. Accessed August 6, 2019 from https://film.avclub.com/ the-magnificent-seven-gets-an-uninspired-remake-1798188899.

Bibliography

329

Vogel, Harold L. 2010. Entertainment Industry Economics: A Guide for Financial Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press. Walker, Tim. 2016. “Point Break $100m Remake: What’s the Point, Dude?” Inde­ pendent, January 18. Accessed March 10, 2018 from www.independent.co.uk/ arts-entertainment/films/features/point-break-100m-remake-whats-the-point­ dude-a6819891.html. Walsh, Katie. 2018. “Latest in a String of ‘Little Women’ Retellings Suffers from Mod­ ernization”. Los Angeles Times, September 27. Accessed August 30, 2019 from www. latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-little-women-review-20180927­ story.html. “Walt Disney”. 2015. Ventura County Star, January 9. Accessed March 2, 2019 from Factiva. Walton, Chris. 2009. Othmar Schoeck: Life and Works. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. “Washington Attends Pelham Premiere”. 2009. Press Association, June 5. Accessed February 27, 2019 from Factiva. Wasko, Janet. 2003. How Hollywood Works. London: Sage Publications. Webster, Dan. 1998. “In Its Time, Hitchcock’s ‘Psycho’ Was a Ground-Breaking Shocker”. The Spokesman Review, December 11. Accessed February 25, 2019 from Factiva. Wee, Valerie. 2016. Japanese Horror Films and Their American Remakes. New York: Routledge. “Weightless Wonderwork with Wow Factor: The Fable ‘Millions’ Has Moral Conun­ drums and Special Effects to Engage the Whole Family”. 2005. Financial Times, May 26. Accessed February 20, 2019 from Factiva. Weinman, Jaime. 2015. “The Not-So-Fantastic Four: The Fall of Marvel’s Flagship Team”. Maclean’s, August 4. Accessed March 2, 2019 from Factiva. Weinraub, Bernard. 1995. “The Great Remake Factory”. The New York Times, Decem­ ber 6. Accessed February 25, 2019 from Factiva. Weitzman, Elizabeth. 2018. “ ‘Little Women’ Film Review: Contemporary Take on Literary Classic Feels More Old-Fashioned Than the Original”. The Wrap, September 27. Accessed July 11, 2019 from www.thewrap.com/little-women­ film-review-2018-lea-thompson/. Welch, Alex. 2015. “ ‘Luther’: Fox’s US Remake Delayed Out of Pilot Season”. Screen Rant, March 11. Accessed February 9, 2019 from https://screenrant.com/ luther-tv-series-us-premiere-date-2016/. Weldon, Michael. 1996. The Psychotronic Video Guide. New York: St Martin’s Griffin Weldon. Welsch, Tricia. 2002. “Sound Strategies: Lang’s Rearticulation of Renoir”. In Dead Ringers: The Remake in Theory and Practice. Edited by Jennifer Forrest and Leonard R. Koos. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 127–150. Weprint, Avery. 2019. “ ‘Inconsistent Branding is Ineffective Branding’: Good Branding Should Never be an Afterthought”. Smart Company, August 16. Accessed August 19, 2019 from www.smartcompany.com.au/partner-content/articles/ inconsistent-branding-is-ineffective-branding/. Westbrook, Caroline. 2000. “The Out-of-Towners Review”. Empire, January 1. Accessed

July 11, 2019 from www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/towners-review/.

Wetherall, Greg. 2018. “ ‘Suspiria’ Film Review – the Thom Yorke-Scored Horror

Remake Delivers Style Over Scares”. NME, September 4. Accessed July 11, 2018

330 Bibliography from www.nme.com/reviews/movie/suspiria-thom-yorke-scored-horror-remake­ delivers-style-scares#Ye3rKy2medoO4SSl.99. Whalen, Andrew. 2018. “2019 ‘Pet Sematary’ Remake ‘Psychologically Horrific,’ Avoiding Original’s Camp”. Newsweek, September 20. Accessed August 8, 2019 from www.newsweek.com/pet-sematary-2019-remake-stephen-king-zelda-movie­ gage-1131295. Whalley, Jim. 2010. Saturday Night Live, Hollywood Comedy, and American Culture: From Chevy Chase to Tina Fey. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. White, Anne M. 2003. “Seeing Double? The Remaking of Alejandro Amenábar’s Abre los ojos (Open Your Eyes) as Cameron Crowe’s Vanilla Sky”. International Journal of Iberian Studies, 15, 3, 187–196. Whitington, Paul. 2019. “How to (Re)Make It in Hollywood: The Big-Screen Reworkings That Surpassed the Originals”. Independent, May 11. Accessed July 29, 2019 from www.independent.ie/entertainment/movies/how-to-remake-it-in­ hollywood-the-bigscreen-reworkings-that-surpassed-the-originals-38096889.html. “Whitney Houston to Appear Posthumously in Film Remake”. 2012. The Telegraph. April 26. Accessed July 29, 2019 from www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film­ news/9227710/Whitney-Houston-to-appear-posthumously-in-film-remake.html. Wiener, Tom. 2002. The Off-Hollywood Film Guide: The Definitive Guide to Independent and Foreign Films on Video and DVD. New York: Random House. Wilde, Madison. 2016. “Conflicting Creativities: Making Sense of the Shot-for-Shot Remake”. Burning Tree Magazine, May 29. Accessed September 7, 2017 from http:// burningtreemagazine.com/2016/05/29/conflicting-creativities-making-sense­ of-the-shot-for-shot-remake/. Wildermuth, Mark E. 2007. “Electronic Media and the Feminine in the National Security Regime: The Manchurian Candidate Before and After 9/11”. Journal of Popular Film & Television, 35, 3, 121–126. Wilken, Selina. 2015. “Why We Should be Concerned That Disney Has Started Remaking Their Remakes”. Hypable, March 31. Accessed February 19, 2019 from www.hypable.com/disney-live-action-remake-mulan-cinderella/. Wilkinson, Alissa. 2017. “The Murder on the Orient Express Remake Is Strangely Inert, Despite a Star-Studded Cast”. Vox, November 10. Accessed March 10, 2017 from www.vox.com/culture/2017/11/10/16618900/murder-on-the-orient-express­ review. Wilkinson, Kathleen. 2013. “Taking Over Tinseltown: Jamie Babbit on Her New Film Breaking the Girls and Queering Hollywood”. Curve, September. Accessed October 23, 2017 from NewsBank. Williams, Joe. 2006. “ ‘King’s Men’ Fails to Deliver the Vote”. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, September 22. Accessed July 12, 2018 from NewsBank. Williams, Kam. 2002. “Blacktrospective 2002: A Look Back at the Year’s Best and Worst in Black Cinema”. New York Amsterdam News, December 26. Accessed June 11, 2018 from Academic Search Complete. Williams, Keith. 2007. H.G. Wells, Modernity and the Movies. Liverpool: Liverpool Uni­ versity Press. Williams, Michael and Christian Mork. 1994. “Remake Stakes Are Up”. Daily Variety, April 19, 5+. Willmore, Alison. 2011. “Impressive Cast Mills About Listlessly in Dumb, Lumpy 13”. Movieline, October 27. Accessed September 9, 2017 from http://movieline. com/2011/10/27/review-13/.

Bibliography

331

Willmore, Alison. 2017. “The Trouble with Disney’s Remake Machine”. BuzzFeed, March 11. Accessed March 10, 2018 from www.buzzfeed.com/alisonwillmore/ beauty-and-the-beast-review?utm_term=.bnpon7L2E#.qs5qVrA67. Wills, David. 1998. “The French Remark: Breathless and Cinematic Citationality”. In Play It Again, Sam: Retakes on Remakes. Edited by Andrew Horton and Stuart Y. McDougal. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 147–161. Wilson, Jake. 2015. “Actors Devoured by Hollywood’s Appetite for the Retrospec­ tive”. The Age, June 20. Accessed March 2, 2019 from Factiva. Wilson, Jake. 2018. “Back to the Horror Town”. The Sydney Morning Herald, Octo­ ber 27. Accessed February 23, 2019 from Factiva. Wirt, John. 2015. “Disney’s ‘Tomorrowland’ Confusing”. The Advocate, July 23. Accessed February 22, 2019 from www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/entertain ment_life/movies_tv/article_f5f22de0-c6e7-5455-a833-a6cb720cf663.html. Wise, Jon. 2010. “The Sunday People: ITV’S Remake of a Bouquet”. The People, Sep­ tember 12. Accessed March 29, 2018 from NewsBank. Wloszczyna, Susan. 2007. “Caine Swaps Roles in ‘Sleuth’ Remake”. USA Today, Octo­ ber 11. Accessed February 4, 2019 from https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/ movies/news/2007-10-10-sleuth-remake_N.htm. Wolf, Stacy Ellen. 2002. A Problem Like Maria: Gender and Sexuality in the American Musical. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Wolgamott, L. Kent. 2005. “ ‘Dukes of Hazzard’ Adaptation Is Stupid But Funny”. Lincoln Journal Star, August 4. Accessed April 1, 2018 from NewsBank. Wong, Dorothy. 2012. “The Remake as a Translation: Localism, Globalism and the Afterlife of Horror Movies”. Translation Quarterly, 66, 21–30. Woods, Faye. 2016. “My Generation(s): Cycles, Branding, and Renewal in E4’s Skins”. In Cycles, Sequels, Spin-Offs, Remakes and Reboots: Multiplicities in Film & Televi­ sion. Edited by Amanda Ann Klein and R. Barton Palmer. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 240–259. Woods, Paul A. 2005. Quentin Tarantino: The Film Geek Films. London: Plexus. Woodyatt, Amy. 2019. “Disney to Remake ‘Home Alone’ for Its Streaming Service”. CNN, August 7. Accessed August 27, 2019 from www.cnn.com/2019/08/07/ movies/disney-home-alone-intl-scli/index.html. Wren, Celia. 2016. “A Bath of Déjà Vu”. Commonweal, September 23, 22. Wright, Neelam Sidhar. 2015. Bollywood and Postmodernism: Popular Indian Cinema in the 21st Century. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Wyatt, Justin. 1994. High Concept: Movies and Marketing in Hollywood. Austin, TX: Uni­ versity of Texas Press. Yabroff, Jennie. 2010. “How Swede It Is”. Newsweek, March 1. Accessed Septem­ ber 18, 2017 from Lexis Nexis. Yakas, Ben. 2017. “The Fate of the Franchise: The Rock & Jason Statham May Really Get ‘Fast & Furious’ Spinoff”. Gothamist, April 21. Accessed April 12, 2018 from http://gothamist.com/2017/04/21/the_fate_of_the_franchise_the_rock.php. Yeo, Colin. 2017. “Will the Superhero Films Ever End? The Business of Blockbuster Movie Franchises”. The Conversation, June 14. Accessed July 3, 2019 from https:// theconversation.com/will-the-superhero-films-ever-end-the-business-of-block­ buster-movie-franchises-78834. Young, Rob. 2016. “Examining Hollywood Remakes: The Omen”. Cinelinx, Febru­ ary 21. Accessed March04, 2018 from www.cinelinx.com/movie-stuff/item/9010­ examining-hollywood-remakes-the-omen.html.

332 Bibliography Young, Ryan. 2003. “A Sexy 1995 Cult Horror Classic Gets a Stale 2013 Remake on Blu-Ray/DVD (Video)”. Toronto Examiner, October 20. Accessed March 29, 2018 from NewsBank. Zacharek, Stephanie. 2005. “Dark Water”. Salon, July 9. Accessed February 7, 2019 from www.salon.com/2005/07/08/dark_water/. Zanger, Anat. 2006. Film Remakes as Ritual and Disguise: From Carmen to Ripley. Amster­ dam: Amsterdam University Press. Zeitchik, Steven. 2016. “Why Nostalgia Is Dominating Movies, Television, Every­ thing”. Los Angeles Times, July 5. Accessed January 22, 2019 from www.pressofat lanticcity.com/life/why-nostalgia-is-dominating-movies-television-everything/ article_e814c040-4061-11e6-8cd3-63e83355e297.html. Zeitchik, Steven. 2019. “Hollywood Executives Serve Up Remakes Because Consum­ ers Like Them. A New Survey Suggests Otherwise”. Washington Post, July 10, 2019. Accessed July 29, 2019 from www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/07/09/ hollywood-executives-serve-up-remakes-because-consumers-like-them-new-survey­ suggests-otherwise/. Zerbisias, Antonia. 1998. “Colour the Tube Green This Fall”. Toronto Star, Septem­ ber 2. Accessed March 3, 2019 from Factiva. Žižek, Slavoj. 2002. Welcome to the Desert of the Real. New York: Verso. Zwolfe, Thaddeus. 2012. “Indie Spotlight: Kawa”. Man, I Love Films, June. Accessed October 23, 2017 from http://manilovefilms.com/reviews/2012/06/ indie-spotlight-kawa/.

Index

A&E network 134

Á annan veg (Either Way) 268

Abarca, Justin 222n111 Abby 119, 255

ABC network 58, 108

Abdul-Jabbar, Kareem 24

Abie’s Irish Rose 269

À bout de souffle (Breathless) 131

About Face 237

About Last Night 257

Abrams, Simon 3, 23, 218

Abre los ojos (Open Your Eyes) 33n13, 90,

115, 133

Accent on Youth 237

accents 5, 147, 149–150, 171n184 Accused, The 14

Addams Family, The 83

Adventures of Robin Hood, The (1938) 21,

68, 87

Adventures of Robin Hood, The (1955–1960) 68

Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle, The

35, 83

Adventures of Shirley Holmes, The 207

Adventures of Terry Teo, The 209

advertising 82, 98, 167n12, 169n84, 202;

see also branding; commercialism;

marketing; prepublicity

aesthetics 15, 31, 39, 45, 80, 107, 110,

111, 121n3, 150, 154, 155, 157, 161,

181, 200, 210, 211, 231, 234, 265; see

also casting

Affair in Trinidad 22

Affair to Remember, An 215

African Queen, The 91, 198

After the Wedding 268

Against All Flags 199

Against All Odds 91

Agatha Christie’s The ABC Murders 65

Age of Innocence, The 28

Agutter, Jenny 88, 91

Ah, Wilderness! 23, 237

AIDS 6, 262–263

Airplane! 256

Aitkenhead, Melanie 253

Äkta människor (Real Humans) 118, 163

Aladdin (1992) 2, 86, 158, 280

Aladdin (2019) 2, 18, 86, 113, 158, 180,

190, 192, 280

Alas sobre El Chaco (Storm Over the Andes)

122–123n32

Albelo, Anna Margarita 252, 254

Alcott, Louisa May 120, 196

Alfie (1966) 1, 11, 33n15, 124n60,

131, 269

Alfie (2004) 1, 11, 131, 269

Alfie Darling 33n15, 124n60

Alfredson, Tomas 123n48

Algiers 49

Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves 88

Alice Adams 25

Alice in Wonderland (1951) 180

Alice in Wonderland (2010) 18, 71,

180, 195

Alice Through the Looking Glass 18, 195

Alien 14

aliens 245, 265

À l’intérieur (Inside) 132

All About Eve 238

All Creatures Great and Small 152

All Dogs Christmas Carol, An 206

All in the Family 117, 158

All That Heaven Allows 32n4, 109, 199

All the King’s Men 29

Alphabet Murders, The 65

Always 161, 271

Always in My Heart 238

Amadeus 16

334 Index Amazing Spider-Man, The 209 Amazon Studios 64–65 ambiguity 133, 134, 135, 136, 142, 145, 261; see also moral ambiguity American Beauty 252 American Graffiti 121n3 Americans, The 170n151 Amityville Horror, The 205, 210, 245 anachronism 56, 81, 186, 213, 228, 269–271, 274 Anastasia 238 Anders, Allison 253 Andersen, Hans Christian 143, 207 Anderson, Dianna 39 Anderson, Joseph 133, 137 And God Created Woman 162, 215 Andrews, Julie 97 Andromeda Strain, The (1971) 243 Andromeda Strain, The (2008) 243, 245 And Soon the Darkness 245 And Then Came Lola 252 Angel of Mine 253 Angels in the Outfield 222n111 Angry Birds Movie, The 174 12 Angry Men 32, 64 Angst essen Seele auf (Ali: Fear Eats the Soul) 199 Aniceto 275n27 Aniello, Lucia 253 animation 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, 17, 18, 21, 23, 24, 40, 51, 54, 56, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 68, 71, 82, 83, 86, 123n48, 127, 132, 132, 158, 159, 174, 177, 180, 182, 183, 191, 192, 193, 195, 197, 203, 206, 207, 211, 229, 238, 255, 261, 264, 270, 277n149, 278n170 Anna 280 Anna and the King (1946) 110, 54, 238 Anna and the King (1972) 110 Anna and the King (1999) 54, 110 Annabelle Comes Home 280 Anna Karenina 88 Anna Lucasta 255 Anne of Green Gables 208 Anne with an E 208 Annie (1982) 109, 209, 257, 272 Annie (2014) 25, 109, 209, 210, 257, 272 Annie Get Your Gun 237 Annie Oakley 237 Another Fine Mess 119 Anthony Zimmer 30, 34n26 anti-Americanism 128–129, 132, 140, 168n48

anti-feminism 107 Apostolos-Cappadona, Diane 241 Applause 238 Argentinian media 34n22, 42, 113, 115, 117, 124n58, 190, 238, 275n27 Argento, Dario 123n48 Arliss, George 87 Armstrong, Bess 27 Armstrong, Gillian 251 Armstrong, Gordon 16 Armstrong, Louis 23 Arnold, Andrea 252 Arnold, Nathanael 152 arrested development 218 arthouse cinema 9, 32n4, 49, 113, 166, 171n167, 176 Arthur 85 Arthur, Karen 250 Art of Racing in the Rain, The 71 Art of Self-Defense, The 51 Ashbrook, Dana 89 Ashbrook, Daphne 150 Asian horror 114, 115, 137, 158, 166n2, 269 Asphalt Jungle, The 119, 198, 255 Assassin, The see Point of No Return Assault on Precinct 13, 164, 176, 199 A-Team, The (1983–1987) 83, 94 A-Team, The (2010) 83, 85, 94 attribution 51, 52, 121, 139, 165; see also royalties Atwood, Margaret 64, 86 audience expansion 59–60, 129, 137, 145–146, 202–213, 245, 259 Aufderheide, Patricia 165, 200 Auntie Mame 238 Austen, Jane 50, 160, 203, 249, 250, 251, 253, 259 Australian media 5, 90, 117, 118, 128, 147, 149, 165, 198, 254 Austrian media 146, 209, 214, 218, 238, 269 auteurism 52, 73, 74, 134, 151, 161, 167n11, 178, 180, 188, 219 autoremakes 6, 15–16, 19, 20, 25, 31, 37n126, 42, 95, 116, 131, 136, 143, 144, 152, 163, 174, 193, 213–219, 226n334, 240, 266, 269, 272 awards 12, 14, 16, 25, 27, 29, 30, 32, 192 Awful Truth, The 236, 239 Aykroyd, Dan 94 Azuelos, Lisa 116, 162, 213

Index Babbit, Jamie 252, 254

Babe 229

Babluani, Géla 19, 42, 116, 141, 162,

192, 213, 218

Baby Boomers 57, 110

Bacall, Lauren 28

Back From Eternity 214

Back to the Future 229

Bacon, Kevin 26, 89

Badham, John 133, 142

Badlanders 119, 198

Bad Lands 198

Bad Lieutenant, The 96

Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New

Orleans 96

Badmington, Neil 186

Bad News Bears 33n14, 209

Bad Seed, The 37n131 Bah, Humduck! A Looney Tunes

Christmas 260

Bailey, Halle 25, 159, 255

Bailey, John 108

Bale, Christian 22

Ball of Fire 23, 177, 214, 219, 238, 240

Balsam, Martin 93

Bangkok Dangerous 31, 163, 215

Bank, Frank 94

bankability 9, 19, 21, 41, 153, 248

Banks, Elizabeth 253

Banlieue 13 (District B13) 90, 132,

168n60

Barbie in a Christmas Carol 206

Barbuto, Dana 205

Barb Wire 175

Barker, Reginald 119, 213

Barker, The 236

Barlaam, Silvia 137

Barnaby Jones 93

Barnes, Joanna 88, 123n35 Barnet, Charlie 23

Barr, Roseanne 89

Barretts of Wimpole Street, The 214

Barricade 198

Barrymore, Drew 27, 81, 88

Barrymore, John 254

Barsanti, Chris 47

Bat, The 216

Bates Motel 63

120 battements par minute (BPM [Beats

Per Minute]) 262

Batten, Alan 56

Battle Beyond the Stars 105

Battleship 174

335

Battlestar Galactica 84, 92, 209

Bat Whispers, The 216

Baum, Frank 175

Baywatch 84, 94

BBC 69, 70, 145, 149, 228, 252, 253;

see also British film; British television

Beach Blanket Bingo 256

Beaches 64, 197, 249, 253, 257, 272

Beach Party 51

Beastie Boys, The 234

Beauty and the Beast (1987–1990)

242, 260

Beauty and the Beast (1991) 21, 40, 82,

85, 123, 191, 195, 211

Beauty and the Beast (2012–2016)

242–243, 260

Beauty and the Beast (2017) 18, 21, 40,

47, 82, 85, 123, 180, 191, 192, 195,

211, 221n60, 254

Beck, Jerry 103

Beck, J. Spencer 28

Beckett, Samuel 103

Bedazzled 131

Bedtime Story 2, 40, 77n95, 175

Beeden, Alexandra 172n198

Beethoven 3

Beguiled, The 32, 188, 249, 253

Being Human 1, 117

Belcher, Walt 2

Belgian media 90, 118, 163, 215, 252

Belle, David 90

Belle of New York, The 236

Belmondo, Jean-Paul 31

Benedict, Dirk 94

Ben-Hur (1907) 240, 188

Ben-Hur (1959) 33n15, 54, 240, 124n60,

160, 188, 193

Ben-Hur (2016) 33n15, 54, 124n60, 188

Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ 54, 240,

160, 188

Bening, Annette 29

Bennett, Dan 1

Bergman, Ingrid 28, 87

Berkeley Square 20–21

Bernhardt, Curtis 122n17

Bernstein, Carolyn 145

Berry, Gene 93

Berton, Paul 178–179

BeTipul (In Therapy) 117

Between Two Worlds 35n30

Beulraindeu (Blind) 226–227n334

Beumer, Antoinette 252

Bevan, Alex 31n35, 54, 57, 59, 110, 111

336 Index Beverly Hillbillies, The 83, 93, 250 Beverly Hills 90210, 84 Bewitched 83, 251 Beymer, Richard 89 Beyoncé 21, 24 Biancolli, Amy 73 biblical epics 6, 7, 15, 22, 54, 187, 228, 240–241 Big Chill, The 46, 176 Big Show, The 198 Big Trail, The 240 Biguenet, John 106 Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure 63 Billingsley, Barbara 94 Billy the Kid 240 Bionic Woman 209, 233 Birch, Patricia 250 Birchard, Robert 58, 240 Birdcage, The 152 Birds II: Land’s End 32n10 Birds, The 32n10, 73 Bishop’s Wife, The 24, 251, 256 Bissell, Whit 93 Bixby, Bill 94 Black, Jack 22 black and white 15, 19, 36n74, 36n76, 85, 133, 141, 211; see also color remakes Black Caesar 255 Black Christmas (1974) 92, 204, 245, 249, 253 Black Christmas (2006) 92, 204, 245, 249, 253 Black Christmas (2019) 204, 249, 253 Black Dahlia, The 23 Blackenstein 255 black gaze 254, 258 Black Knight 256 Black Mama White Mama 255 Blackpool 117, 157, 158 Blacula 255, 258 Blade II 256 Blair, Andrew 10 Blair Witch 86, 230 Blair Witch Project, The 86, 230 Blanchard, Tammy 21 Blanchett, Cate 22, 28, 70, 156 Blankman 256 Blaxploitation 11, 119, 198, 200, 255–258 Bless this Mess 210 Blob, The (1958) 14, 75n19, 210 Blob, The (1988) 75n19, 210

blockbusters 1, 4, 12–14, 16, 17, 44, 49, 56, 58, 120, 264 Bloom, Harold 48 Blow-Up 51, 120, 161 Bluebeard’s Eighth Wife 160 Blue Dahlia, The 23 Blues Brothers, The 105 Blue Veil, The 189 Bnei Aruba (Hostages) 118 Body and Soul 255 Body Snatchers 102, 264 Bogart, Humphrey 155 Bohnenkamp, Björn 16, 36n81, 72 Bojalad, Alec 99 Bollywood 75n18, 165, 235, 275n27 Bolter, Jay David 62 Boris and Natasha 83 Bornedal, Ole 116, 162, 213 Born Yesterday 34n20, 176, 187 Boudu sauvé des eaux (Boudu Saved from Drowning) 24 Boulting, John 34n24 Bouquet of Barbed Wire, A 273–274 box office 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 21, 26, 27, 29, 30, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 56, 57, 58, 59, 67, 71, 97, 132, 141, 142, 144, 148, 151, 168n59, 179, 180, 181, 204, 211, 232, 234, 235, 258, 269, 271, 272, 281 Boy Meets World 84 Boym, Svetlana 80, 81 Bradley, David 153 Bradshaw, Peter 42 Brady Bunch, The 83, 93 Brady Bunch Movie, The 83, 93 Bramesco, Charles 142, 208 Branagh, Kenneth 28 branding 4, 56–58, 62, 74, 101, 175, 194, 202; see also advertising; commercialism; marketing; merchandizing Brandy 24, 255 Brasher Doubloon, The 119 Braudy, Leo 48, 125n123 Braun, Liz 2 Brayson, Johnny 125n113 Breakfast at Tiffany’s 142 Breaking Bad 154 Breaking the Girls 252 Breathless 31, 131, 152 Breillat, Catherine 252 Brent, George 53 Brer Rabbit’s Christmas Carol 206

Index Breslow, Andy 33n14 Brewster’s Millions (1914) 255 Brewster’s Millions (1985) 255, 258 Brick Mansions 90, 132, 168n60 Bride of Frankenstein 15, 24, 119, 216 Bride, The 24 Bridge, The 118, 268 Brighton Belles 165 Brighton Rock 32n24 British film 11, 73, 86, 88, 90, 92, 94, 105, 115, 119, 122–123n32, 131, 144, 151, 162, 171, 175, 176, 187, 198, 215, 252, 255, 257, 273; see also BBC British television 1, 2, 11, 27, 49, 51, 64, 65, 67, 68, 72, 88, 90, 92, 95, 116, 117, 127, 131, 132, 135, 137, 141, 145, 149, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 158, 165, 166, 167n12, 172n198, 183, 184, 188, 191, 192, 196, 207, 231, 233, 255, 269, 273; see also BBC Broadchurch 2, 11, 67, 90, 116, 127, 131, 145, 149, 152, 153, 154 Broadway 178, 197, 235, 240 Broadway Bill 36n74, 88, 214, 219, 266 Broderick, Matthew 28 Brødre (Brothers) 268 Broken Horses 163, 172n216, 214 Broken Lance 119, 198 Bron/Broen (The Bridge) 118, 268 Bronson, Charles 30 Brontë, Emily 143 Brontë, Charlotte 252 Brother Rat 237 Brothers 268 Brown, Len 29 Browning, Tod 36n74, 214 Bruce, Justin 136, 137, 143 Brustein, Robert 62, 96, 101, 131 Brynner, Yul 22, 30 Buddy Buddy 33n16, 160 Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1992) 63 Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1996–2003) 31, 63, 74, 86 Bugs Bunny’s Christmas Carol 260 Bui, Hoai-Train 127 Bullock, Sandra 22, 28, 70, 156 Bullock, Saxon 32n5, 59, 193 Bullwinkle Show, The 65, 83 Bundle of Joy 238 ‘Burbs, The 51 Burg, Mark 205, 206 Burglar, The 164 Burnett, Frances Hodgson 251

337

Burnett, W.R. 198 Burr, Ty 81 Burton, Tim 27, 71, 95, 180, 195, 271 Bush, George 245 Butler, Michael 263 Butter and Egg Man, The 237 Byrne, Gabriel 188 Cabaret 238 Cabin Fever 63, 118 cable television 43, 58, 62, 63, 64, 73, 144, 145 Cabrita, Josh 232 Cactus Flower 187 Caddyshack 257 Cage, Nicolas 31 Cain and Mabel 236 Caine, Michael 2, 92, 94, 97, 98 Cairo 119, 198 callbacks 59, 95, 280 cameos 87, 89, 90, 92–95, 96, 97, 98, 106, 123n38 Camille 32n3 Campbell, Bruce 69–70 Campbell, Christopher 92–93, 260 camp remakes 34n24, 110, 111, 201, 212, 213, 247, 261 Canadian media 116, 157, 163, 166, 177, 207, 214, 215, 222n111, 263 Canet, Fernando 121 Cannonball Run, The 51 Can’t Buy Me Love 85, 204, 256 Cape Fear 22, 68, 93, 95, 96, 156, 161, 182 capitalism 40–44, 128, 129, 148, 169n84, 181, 230, 246 Capote, Truman 142 Capra, Frank 21, 36n74, 43, 88, 111, 126n127, 165, 193, 214, 217, 219, 264, 266, 272 Captain Blood 95 Captain Calamity 123 Captain January 236 Car 54, Where Are You? 83, 94 Carell, Steve 30 Carmen: A Hip Hopera 24, 240 Carmen Jones 24 Caro, Niki 253 Carousel 237 Carpenter, John 43, 204, 214 Carrey, Jim 22 Carrie (1976) 2, 33n12, 54, 176, 212, 244, 252, 261

338 Index Carrie (2002) 54, 244, 252 Carrie (2013) 2, 33n12, 54, 176, 212, 244, 252, 261 Carroll, Lewis 50 Carter, Richard 57, 72 cartoons see animation Cartwright, Angela 94 Casablanca (1942) 59, 63, 165, 175 Casablanca (1955) 63 Casablanca (1983) 63 Casbah 237 casting 19, 20, 23, 24, 26, 31, 59, 74, 81, 87, 89, 90, 95, 96, 97, 98, 129, 147, 150, 155, 157, 158, 159, 178, 189, 204, 248, 249; better looking casts 5, 19–27, 153–156; celebrity casting 2, 4, 14, 19, 20, 26, 27–31, 32n4, 151, 152, 153–156, 178, 258; diversity casting 75, 158–159, 255–259 (see also race-swapping); ensemble casting 27–29, 89; non-celebrity casting 21, 26, 158, 191, 233 Caswill, Vanessa 251 Cat and the Canary, The 119 Catastrophe 166 Catch That Kid 268 Catch 22 65 Cat Creeps, The 119 Cat People 212 Cavalleria rusticana (Fatal Desire) 18 CBS network 65, 68, 242 celebrity 20, 27, 28, 31, 135, 151, 152, 153, 154, 281; celebrity intertextuality 87; see also casting censorship 19, 193, 194; see also classification 50 Cent 29 CGI 4, 17, 36n71, 151, 180, 206, 211, 231 Chakushin ari (One Missed Call) 115, 177 Challenge to Lassie 91 Champ, The 34n21 Champoux, Joseph 242 Chan, Kenneth 42, 203 Chandler, Abigail 70 Chandler, Tim 128, 129 Chaney, Lon 26, 87 Chapman, James 151 Chappie 176 Charade 1, 256 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory 96, 183, 209 Charlie’s Angels (1976–1981) 83, 84, 89, 247, 251

Charlie’s Angels (2000) 53, 83, 89 Charlie’s Angels (2011) 84, 247, 251 Charlie’s Angels (2019) 89, 253 Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle 83, 89 Charlie Varrick 130 Charm School, The 236 Charmed 84, 86, 175, 189, 249 Cheat, The 90, 164 Cheshire, Godfrey 179–180 chick lit 250 child abuse 266 Children’s Hour, The 91, 160, 194, 216 children’s media 6, 18, 62, 82, 84, 86, 98, 99, 117, 206–207, 208, 209, 211, 268, 280, 281 Childs, Ben 182 Child’s Play 280 Chilean media 116, 156, 163, 214, 249 Chilling Adventures of Sabrina 65, 86, 210, 249 China Girl 203 Chinatown 121n3 Chinese media 159, 162, 226n334, 259 CHiPs ’99, 83, 89, 93 CHiPs (1977–1983) 83, 87, 93 CHIPS (2017) 83 Chopra, Vidhu Vinod 163, 214 Choyonghan kajok (The Quiet Family) 275n27 Christian media 120, 241; see also biblical epics Christie, Agatha 2, 28, 65, 103 Christmas Carol, A (1843) 54, 89, 166, 206, 256 Christmas Carol, A (1984) 89 Christmas Carol, A (1999) 89 Christmas Carol, A (2009) 18, 54, 206 Cimarron 240 Cinderella (1950) 24, 195, 254, 278n170 Cinderella (1997) 24, 255 Cinderella (2015) 195, 278n170 cinematography 19, 178 City of Angels 143, 234 Clarkson, Patricia 29 Clash of the Titans 85 classification 60, 205; see also censorship Classified 119 Clavier, Christian 89 Cleopatra (1912) 16 Cleopatra (1963) 16, 178 climate change see environmentalism Clooney, George 22, 27, 70, 155 Close, Glenn 28, 144 Cloud Atlas 132

Index Clover, Carol 14

Clown, The 34n21

Clueless 86, 169n99, 203, 251

Coffey, Padraic 74

Colangelo, Sara 253

Cold Pursuit 220n33, 268

Cold War 6, 197, 220n33, 239, 241, 242,

243, 245, 263, 264, 265

Coleman, Robin 176, 207

Collyer, Laurie 253

Colman, Olivia 154

Color Me Dead 165

color remakes 4, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, 23,

36n71, 36n74, 36n76, 85, 141–142,

193, 211, 231; see also black and

white; Technicolor

Colorado Territory 25, 91, 198, 216

Columbian media 117

Columbia Pictures 175, 239

Columbus, Chris 82

comeback vehicle 20, 26–27; see also

casting

comfort food 99–101, 177

commercialism 5, 31, 38n162, 39–41,

44, 47, 48, 66, 71, 80, 81, 128–130,

138, 141, 145, 167n11, 168n59, 173,

174, 177, 178, 181, 187, 229, 232, 279,

281; see also advertising; branding;

marketing

commodification 35n31, 42, 49,

131, 181

Common Man A 115, 172n216

computer games 149, 174, 207

computer graphics see CGI

Conan the Barbarian 18, 85

Condon, Bill 191, 217

Coney Island 51, 91

Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court,

A (1921) 236

Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court,

A (1949) 236, 256

Conners, The 84, 89

Connery, Jason 95

Connery, Sean 28, 88, 93, 95, 98

Conquest of the Planet of the Apes 263

conservatism 80, 109, 110, 111, 239,

240, 241, 242, 264

Containment 118

context collapse 113, 122n9

Contraband 268

Control 29

Conversation, The 51, 120, 161

Cool Breeze 198, 255, 259

Cooper, Bradley 22, 195

339

Coover, Robert 103

Cop Out 228–229

Coppola, Francis Ford 161

Coppola, Sofia 188, 234, 250, 253

copyright 50, 62, 67

Corbijn, Anton 29

Cordon 118

Corliss, Richard 2, 13, 86, 100, 101, 108,

151, 171n167

Cormack, Danielle 254

Corwin, Norman 189

Costner, Kevin 21

Cotillard, Marion 29

Count Dracula 88

Count of Monte Cristo, The 207

Coupling 117

Courtship of Eddie’s Father, The 94

Cousin, Cousine 135

Cousins 135

Cracker 153

Cradle Snatchers, The 236

Craig, Daniel 156

Crawford, Chelsey 138, 139, 146

Crawford, Joan 27, 29

Crazies 245

Creator, Tyler the 234

credit see attribution

Creed II 52

Crime d’amour (Love Crime) 134

Criminal 34n22, 115, 124n58, 190

Crisp, Donald 91

Crocodile 214

Crocodile Dundee II 52

Cronenberg, David 214, 263

Cronin, Mike 128, 129

Crosby, Bing 87

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon 148

Crow, The 86, 123n48

Crowe, Russell 22

Cruel Intentions 203

Cruise, Tom 21

Cruz, Oggs 1

Cruz, Penélope 28, 29, 90

Cukor, George 49

Cullinan, Thomas 188

cultural imperialism see imperialism

culture war 110

Curly Top 236

Curtis, Richard 52

Curtiz, Michael 122n17

CW network 242

Daddy Long Legs 236

Dad’s Army 83, 88, 91

340 Index Dafoe, Willem 28

Dahl, Roald 183

Daily Show, The 139

Dallas 84

Dalton, Stephen 23

Dalton, Timothy 204

Damon, Matt 27, 30, 70, 153

Damsel in Distress 236

Danes, Claire 28

Daney, Serge 152

D’Angelo, Mike 136

Dangerous Liaisons 203

Danish media 117, 118, 158, 162, 204,

252, 268

Danson, Ted 30

Dante 103

Dante’s Peak 229

Danza macabre (A Taste of Blood) 226n334 darker remakes 17, 135, 136, 207,

208–210, 212, 241, 261, 265

Darkest Hour 228

Dark Knight 212

Dark Phoenix 280

Dark Shadows 83

Dark Water 115

Darr (Fear) 172n216 Daughter of Dr. Jekyll 104

Daughters Courageous 238

David and Bathsheba 240

David Copperfield (1911) 65–66 David Copperfield (1986) 65–66, 112

David Copperfield (1993) 206

Davidson, Boaz 129, 144, 162, 163,

167n11, 214

Davies, Marion 88

Da Vinci Treasure, The 200

Davis, Ann B. 93

Davis, Lucy 154

Davis Jr., Sammy 27, 71, 155

Dawn of the Dead 176, 188, 244

Dawson’s Crack 200

Dawson’s Creek 200

Day, Doris 22, 155

Day-Lewis, Daniel 29

Days Like These 165

Day of the Jackal, The 187

Day the Earth Stood Still, The (1951)

34n23, 243, 264

Day the Earth Stood Still, The (2008)

34n23, 243, 245, 264

Dear White People 64

Death at a Funeral 90, 176, 257

Death Race 233

Death Takes a Holiday 22, 32n5, 193

Death Wish (1974) 21, 249

Death Wish (2018) 21

De battre mon coeur s’est arrêté (The Beat

That My Heart Skipped) 164

Debruge, Peter 1

de Bruin, Joost 172n198

D.E.B.S. 251, 254

Debt, The 115

Déclassée 119

Deeley, Michael 70

Defiant Ones, The 252, 253, 255

De Fina, Barbara 95, 96

DeFore, John 19

Deitch, Donna 250, 254

Delamater, Jerome 235, 270

De Lift (The Lift) 163, 215

Delivery Man 116, 163, 177, 215

Delman, Jef 175

DeLuise, Peter 94

DeMille, Cecil B. 15, 16, 58, 161, 193,

213, 214, 240, 241, 242, 275n33

Dench, Judi 28

De Niro, Robert 22, 95, 156

Den osynlige (The Invisible) 268

Den som dræber (Those Who Kill)

118, 268

De Palma, Brian 134, 155

Depardieu, Gérard 89

Departed, The 30, 49, 115, 153, 155,

161, 182

Depp, Johnny 28, 30, 94, 195

depression see mental health

Der blaue Engel (The Blue Angel)

122–123n32, 162

Dergarabedian, Paul 45, 82

Der Himmel über Berlin (Wings of Desire)

143, 234

Desert Hearts 250

Desperate Hours 184, 199

Desperate Housewives 132

Des’ree 234

Destry 20, 215

Destry Rides Again 20, 215

Detel, Hanne 113

Deuxième bureau (Second Bureau) 4

Dewan, Shaila 262

de Wilde, Autumn 253

Dial M For Murder 182

Diamond Horseshoe 236

Diary of a Chambermaid, The 164

DiCaprio, Leonardo 28, 30, 153

Index Dickens, Charles 54, 65, 89, 103, 111, 166, 206, 256 Dickinson, Thorold 49 Die elf Schill’schen Offiziere (The Eleven Schill Officers) 226n334 Die Hard 52 Dietrich, Marlene 20, 25, 122–123n32 Dikiy vostok (The Wild East) 105 DiLeo, John 191, 271–272 diminishing returns 4, 42, 71, 75n23, 113, 181, 193, 230 Dinklage, Peter 90 Dinner for Schmucks 30 Dip huet seung hung (The Killer) 140 Dirty Dancing (1987) 58, 63, 108, 205, 220n33, 235 Dirty Dancing (1988–1989) 63 Dirty Dancing (2017) 58, 108, 205, 220n33, 235 Dirty Dozen, The 256 Dirty Gertie from Harlem U.S.A. 255 Dirty Rotten Scoundrels 2, 40, 77n95, 175 Disney 1, 5, 10, 17, 18, 40, 44, 46, 54, 56, 57, 61, 62, 63, 65, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 82, 101, 103, 129, 143, 158, 159, 174, 180, 183, 188, 195, 197, 205, 206, 207, 211 Disraeli 87 Disturbia 204 Diversion 49, 144 Dixon, Wheeler Winston 29, 141, 144, 153, 218 Django 257 Django Unchained 257 D.O.A. 130 Docks of New Orleans 34n25, 177 Doctor, The 46 Doctor Dolittle 251, 256, 257 Doctor Who 150, 151 Doctor Who: The Movie 150 domestic violence 254, 265 Donaldson, Roger 44, 57 Don Jon 23 Donoghue, Mary Agnes 250 Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark 245 Dora and the Lost City of Gold 203 Dora the Explorer 203 Dormer, Natalie 189 Dorsey, Tommy 23 Double Indemnity 273 Douglas, Michael 144 Dove, The 119, 236 Down 163, 215

341

Dowd, A.A. 3, 63, 113, 118 Down and Out in Beverly Hills 24 Down Argentine Way 237 Down to Earth 24, 238 Downton Abbey 51 Doyle, Arthur Conan 50, 197, 207 Dracula (1931) 81 Dracula (1992) 262 Dracula 2000, 262 Dracula 3D 18 Dracula A.D. 1972, 88 Dracula and Son 88 Dracula Has Risen from the Grave 88 Dracula: Prince of Darkness 88 Dragon Ball 158 Dragonball: Evolution 158 Dressed to Thrill 237 Dreyfuss, Richard 271 Drezner, Daniel 176 Dr. Jekyll and Ms. Hyde 104 Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde 104 drug use 137, 196, 263 Druxman, Michael 12, 17, 20, 50, 53, 81, 104, 184, 201, 204, 263 dubbing 147, 170n141 Duchovny, David 89 Duck Soup 119 Due Date 51, 85 Duel 166 Duke, Patty 92 Dukes of Hazzard, The 34n19, 83, 244 Dumas, Alexandre 98 dumbed-down remakes 5, 13, 42, 130–135, 138, 149, 168n60, 202, 207, 208, 232 Dumbo (1941) 2, 27, 103, 193, 270, 277n149 Dumbo (2019) 2, 18, 27, 27, 103, 180, 193, 221n63, 270, 277n149 Dunaway, Faye 92, 96 Dunkirk 228 Dunne, Susan 70, 174 Durham, Carolyn 267 Dutch media 115, 116, 131, 136, 163, 213, 215, 252 Dynasty 84 Eagan, Daniel 15 Easter eggs 53, 92, 96, 106, 121, 123n36; see also self-referential remakes Eastwood, Clint 156, 190, 247 Eat Drink Man Woman 259

342 Index Ebert, Roger 59, 168n59, 201

Eberwein, Robert 51, 87, 120, 198,

199, 254

Ebsen, Buddy 93

Echo, The 115

Edge of Darkness 27

edgier remakes 41, 208–210

editing 61, 104, 134, 190, 204,

231–233, 234

EDtv 222n111

Edwards, Blake 193

Edwards, David 135

Efter brylluppet (After the Wedding) 268

Eggert, Brian 26, 97

Eggerth, Márta 122n32

ego 104, 188, 217, 218

Egyptian, The 122n17

Ehrlich, David 221n62

8½, 29, 234, 235

Eisenmann, Ike 94

Eisner, Breck 245

Ejiofor, Chiwetel 21

Ekk Deewana Tha 226n334

El Capitan Tormenta 122–123n32

El diablo del Mar 122–123n32

El Dorado 24, 91, 213, 214, 216

Eleventh Hour 117

Ellis, John 103

Ellis, Robin 92, 231

Ellison, David 188

El romance del Aniceto y la Francisca 275n27

Elsaesser, Thomas 38n162, 140

El secreto de sus ojos (The Secret in their

Eyes) 34n26, 42, 113

El valor de vivir (The Price of Living) 18

Embrace of the Vampire 205

Emerald City 209

Emma (1815) 203, 251

Emma (2020) 253

Emmerton, Lisa 150

Emperor’s New Groove, The 63

Emperor’s New School 63

Enamorada 163, 214

Endless Love 205, 252

Enemy Mine 199

English, Diane 252

En las afueras de la ciudad (Hidden in the

Woods) 163, 215

En man som heter Ove (A Man Called

Ove) 268

environmentalism 6, 248, 264–265, 269

Ephron, Nora 251

Equalizer, The 83

Equalizer 2, The 83

Escape to Witch Mountain 94

escapism 100, 101, 110, 142, 239, 244,

246, 247, 271, 272, 281

Eskimo Limon (Lemon Popsicle) 129, 144,

163, 214

Esmeralda 143

Estrada, Erik 89, 93

Es war einmal ein Walzer (Where Is This Lady?) 122n32 E.T. 99

Et Dieu . . . créa la femme (And God

Created Woman) 162, 215

ethics 194, 263

European media 38n162, 132, 133, 135,

138, 139, 140–141, 151, 153, 154,

157, 161, 167n11, 168n48, 183; see

also world media

Evangelista, Chris 71

Evans, Owen 139, 170n111

Evans, Rupert 189

Eve Knew Her Apples 237

event cinema 4, 12, 13, 16; see also

blockbusters

Ever After 254

Everybody’s Fine 177

Evil Dead (1981) 210, 212, 215, 217

Evil Dead (2013) 210, 212

Evil Dead II 215

eXistenZ 229

Exorcist, The 119, 235, 255

Eye, The 187

Eyman, Scott 193

fairy tales 5, 7, 81, 100, 103, 209, 210,

217, 229, 242, 255

Falsetto, Mario 60, 61, 232, 271

Fame 34n23, 85, 205

family values 129, 137

Fan, The 160

Fancy Pants 236

Fanfare d’Amour (Fanfare of Love) 160

Fanfaren der Liebe (Fanfares of Love) 160

Fantasia 182

Fantasia: 2000, 182

Fantastic Four, The (2005) 208, 246

Fantastic Four, The (2015) 208

Fantasy Island 209

Far East 165

Farewell to Arms, A 122n17

Far From Heaven 32n4, 109

Fargo 63

Index Faris, Anna 21 Farrant, Kim 253 Farrow, John 214 Fast and the Furious, The (1954) 32n5, 265 Fast and The Furious, The (2001) 32n5, 51, 265, 269 Fatal Attraction 49, 144, 204 Father of the Bride 68 Faye, Alice 201 Fear 172n216 Feig, Paul 125n113 female gaze 248, 253 femininity 154, 171n167 feminism 6, 20, 28, 38n147, 107, 126n127, 186, 198, 242, 244, 247–254 Ferdinand 18 Ferdinand the Bull 18 Fernández, Emilio 163, 214 Ferran, Pascale 252 Ferrara, Abel 96 Ferrell, Will 228 Ferrigno, Lou 94 Ferris Bueller’s Day Off 63 Feste, Shana 252 fidelity 7, 10, 158, 183, 186, 189, 194 Field of Dreams 46 Fiend Who Walked the West, The 54 Fifty Shades of Black 119, 257 Fifty Shades of Grey 119, 257 Fight Club 51 Fighting Coward, The 236 film-noir 18, 19, 22, 25, 34n24, 40, 54, 91, 119, 144, 160, 161, 165, 182, 198, 199, 273 Findley, Melissa 42 Fine, Delia 134 Fine, Marshall 39 Fingers 164 Finke, Nikki 55 Finn, Adam 170n141 First Time, The 204, 252, 268 Fischer, Jenna 154 Fisher, Carrie 29 Fistful of Dollars, A 51, 156, 161, 190, 198, 200 Five Came Back 214 Five Graves to Cairo 160 fixer-uppers 184–185 Flash, The 84, 89, 92 Flatliners (1990) 26, 86, 92, 130 Flatliners (2017) 26, 86, 92, 97–98, 130 Fleet’s In, The 236

343

Fleming, Ian 103 Flesh for Frankenstein 37n92 Fletcher, Anne 252 Flight of the Phoenix 130 Flintstones Christmas Carol, A 206, 207 Flintstones, The 83 Fly, The 182, 212, 263 Flying High 24 Flynn, Bob 60 Flynn, Errol 68, 95 Flynn, Sean 95 focus groups 129 Fog, The (1980) 34n26, 85, 204, 214 Fog, The (2005) 34n26, 85, 204 Follow the Fleet 236 Footloose 85, 108, 181, 233, 269, 270 Forbidden Fruit 161, 193, 214 Forbidden Planet 197 Forbrydelsen (The Killing) 118, 158, 268 Force Majeure (Tourist) 268 Ford, Christine Blasey 250 Ford, John 213, 214 Ford, Mary 59 Forfaiture (The Cheat) 90, 164 Forrest, Jennifer 22, 36n71, 47, 66, 111, 133, 138, 141, 147, 161, 201, 222n134 Forsythe, John 89 Foster, Gwendolyn Audrey 29, 141, 144, 153 Foster, Jodie 47, 89 Fosters, The 165 Four Brothers 199, 256 Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) 51, 52, 64, 65, 86 Four Weddings and a Funeral (2019–) 51, 64, 65, 86 franchises 36n63, 44, 45, 66, 74, 97, 106, 131, 230; franchise expansion 13, 46, 56, 57, 61–62, 280, 281 Francis Jr., James 14, 19, 25, 68, 69, 87, 97, 187, 202, 211, 261, 265, 266, 275n51 Frank, Alan 190 Frankenstein (1818) 17, 37n92, 98, 104 Frankenstein (1910) 255 Frankenstein (1931) 15, 119, 199, 216 Franklin, Sidney 214 Freaky Friday (1976) 54, 89, 251 Freaky Friday (1995) 54, 251 Freaky Friday (2003) 54, 89 Freaky Friday (2008) 54 Frederick, Candice 74 Free Agents 90

344 Index Freeman, Hadley 132 French Connection, The 255 French Line, The 18, 23, 237 French media 4, 9, 19, 24, 30, 31, 33n16, 34n25, 34n26, 37n131, 38n162, 41, 42, 48–49, 55, 73, 75n18, 89, 90, 104, 114, 115, 116, 118, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 141, 143, 144, 145, 148, 151, 154, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 166n2, 168n60, 169n82, 169n97, 170n134, 171n181, 177, 183, 187, 189, 190, 192, 199, 203, 204, 208, 213, 214, 215, 216, 222n111, 233, 237, 250, 251, 252, 253, 257, 267 Frenzy 216 Friday the 13th 1 Friends 112 Friends with Benefits 229 Fright Night 18, 85, 93, 210, 212, 262 From Prada to Nada 259 Front Page, The 160 Frost, Emma 253 Frozen 101 Frühjahrsparade 237 Fugitive, The (1963–1967) 83, 84 Fugitive, The (1993) 83 Fugitive, The (2000–2001) 84 Fuji, Takako 90 Fuller House 64, 84, 85, 112 Full House 64, 84, 85, 112 Funny Games 146, 209, 214, 218, 269 Fun With Dick and Jane 22, 34–35n29, 209 Furlough 253 Futterman, Dan 149 Gable, Clark 26–27, 91 Gaga, Lady 22, 23, 195 Galifianakis, Zach 30 Gambler, The 209 13 game sayawng (13 Beloved) 34n21 Gandolfini, James 29 Gann, Jason 90 Garbage 234 Garbo, Greta 27, 88 Gargan, William 91 Garland, Judy 24, 27 Garner, James 91 Gaslight 49, 115 Gaydos, Steven 45, 46 gaze see black gaze; female gaze; queer gaze Gazebo, The 164

Gazzara, Ben 29 Geheimnis des blauen Zimmers 237 Geib, Helen 32n4 Gekijourei (Ghost Theater) 226n334 Gellar, Sarah Michelle 31, 136 gender 6, 109, 166, 186, 205, 248–250, 252, 254, 259, 262, 266, 274 gender-swapping see sex-swapping General, The 51 genre conventions 52, 102, 137 genre-swaps 105, 121, 198–202 genre trends 115, 235–242 gentrification 9, 13, 16, 17, 19, 29, 32, 151, 248 Genzlinger, Neil 58 Georgakas, Dan 21, 98 George, Melissa 90 Geoul sokeuro (Into the Mirror) 115 Gerber, Bill 244 Gerbrandt, Larry 56 Gere, Richard 31 Geronimo 198 Gerwig, Greta 251 Get Carter 94, 119, 131, 187, 209, 255 Get Over It 203 Get Smart 83, 93 Getaway, The 175, 177, 182 Geurin Meseu (Good Doctor) 118 Ghajini 226n334 Ghastly Ones, The 215 Ghost Breakers, The 215 Ghostbusters (1984) 22, 59, 82, 94, 95, 107, 108, 114, 125n113, 194, 230 Ghostbusters (2016) 22, 59, 74, 82, 94, 95, 107, 180, 114, 125n113, 185, 194, 195, 202, 230 Ghost in the Shell 21, 23, 132, 158 Gibron, Bill 30 Gibson, Mel 27 Gidget 51 Gigi 238 Gilbert, Matthew 21, 273 Gilda 22 Gilmore Girls 64, 84 Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life 64, 84 Gin gwai (The Eye) 187 Girl in Every Port, A 119 Girl Meets World 84 Girl Most Likely, The 238 Girl of Rio 119, 236 Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, The 113, 114, 115, 135, 141, 156, 157, 171n171, 267 Giuffre, Liz 254 Glaser, Paul Michael 94

Index Glass Key, The 161

global financial crisis 47

globalization 127, 128–129, 150, 161,

163, 164, 166n5

Gloria 116, 156, 163, 214, 249

Gloria Bell 116, 156, 163, 214, 249

Glorious Betsy 236

Glover, Donald 21

Gnomeo & Juliet 207

Goaz, Harry 89

Godard, Jean-Luc 31, 152

Goddard, Mark 94

3 Godfathers 213, 214

Godfrey, Wyck 169n82 Godzilla (1977) 16

Godzilla (1998) 16, 189, 197, 280

Godzilla (2014) 16

Godzilla II: King of the Monsters 280

Go Fish 251

Goggin, Joyce 35n31, 39

Going Places 236

Gojira (Godzilla) 189, 197

Goldberg, Whoopi 255

Goldblum, Jeff 89, 98

Golden Chance, The 161, 193, 214

Golden Girls, The 165

Goldie 119

Goldwyn, Samuel 143, 185; see also MGM

Gone in 60 Seconds 24, 32n5, 34n19 Good, the Bad, and Huckleberry Hound,

The 207

Goodbye Girl, The 273

Goodbye Pork Pie 95

Goodbye, Mr. Chips 238

Good Doctor, The 118

Good Fight, The 65

Goodman, John 89

Goodman, Tim 2

Good Thief, The 11, 85

Good Times 165

Good Wife, The 65

Gordy 229

gorier remakes 208, 212, 226n328, 261;

see also scarier remakes

Goscilo, Helena 48, 134, 142, 148,

153–154

Gottlieb, Lisa 250

Goyôkin 199, 200

Grable, Betty 91, 201

Gracepoint 2, 11, 67, 90, 116, 127, 131,

142, 145, 149, 152, 153, 154

Graduate, The 234

Grand Hotel (1932) 27, 29

Grand Hotel (2019–) 118

345

Gran Hotel 118

Grant, Cary 96

Grease 34n25, 177, 250

Grease 2, 34n25, 177, 250

Great Divide, The 119, 213

Greatest, The 252

Great Gatsby, The 28

Great White Way, The 236

Greeks Had a Word for Them, The 237

Green Acres 210

Greenberg, Harvey 10, 193

Greene, Richard 68

Green Goddess, The 87

Greer, Jane 91

Greven, David 260

Greyfriars Bobby 91

Grieco, Richard 89

grittier remakes 208, 209, 210, 212,

241, 265

grittiness 136, 152

Grohmann, Barbara 189

Grudge, The 31, 90, 114, 136, 146,

210, 215

Grusin, Richard 62

guilty pleasures 90, 124n71, 177

Gumball Rally, The 51

Gunga Din 199

Gunn, Anna 154

2 Guns 130

Guns of the Magnificent Seven 105

Gupta, Shubhra 11

Guttenberg, Steve 30

Guy Named Joe, A 161, 271

Haganenet (The Kindergarten Teacher)

92, 253

Ha-Hov (The Debt) 115

Hairspray 85, 92

Hale, Alan 87

half-hearted remakes 10, 34n25, 177,

187, 250

half-life of ideas 5, 112–113, 118,

120, 230

Halloween 245, 260

Hamilton, Margaret 88

Hamlet (2000) 203

Hamlet (2009) 89

Hamlet 2, 203

Hamlet Prince of Denmark 89

Hammil, Mark 89

Handmaid’s Tale, The 64, 86, 248, 250

Haneke, Michael 146, 162, 214,

217–218

Hangover, The 176, 253

346 Index Hangover II, The 176

Hanks, Tom 22

Hanna-Barbera 207

happy endings 5, 135, 142–145 Hard to Get 119

Hardwicke, Catherine 253

Hardy, Robert 152

Harlé, P.A. 48

Harney, Michael 9, 141, 151, 181

Harold Teen 236

Harper 119, 255

Harper, Graeme 139, 170n111 Harrelson, Woody 153

Harries, Dan 95

Harris, Dana 200

Harrison, Jack 36n88 Harrison, Linda 93

Harrison, Rex 143, 256

Harryhausen, Ray 23

Hart, Kylo-Patrick 262

Hartl, John 68

Harvey (1950) 64, 88

Harvey (1972) 64, 88

Harvey (1996) 64

Harvey, Dennis 42

Harvey, Kevin 276n62 Hasselhoff, David 94

Hatch, Richard 92

hate-watching 10

Hathaway, Anne 22, 28

Hatufim (Prisoners of War) 118, 24

Haver, June 201 Hawaii Five-O 84

Hawke, Ethan 30

Hawks, Howard 24, 119, 177–178, 213,

214, 216, 219, 240

Hawthorne, Nathaniel 143

Hayakawa, Sessue 90

Hayes, Sean 90

Hays Code 133, 136–137, 144–145, 241

Hayworth, Rita 22, 201

Head, Anthony 90

Head Above Water 268

Head Over Heels 199

Heartbreak Kid, The 177

Hearts Divided 236

Heat 156, 191, 192, 193, 215, 217

Heathers 249

Heaven Can Wait 264

Heche, Anne 26

Heckerling, Amy 203, 251

Hedren, Tippi 73, 74

Hefner, Brooks 258

Heinze, Rüdiger 3, 34n28, 138, 139, 202

Helgeland, Brian 55

Hellboy 212, 261

Hellekson, Karen 150

Heller, Dana 28

Heller-Nicholas, Alexandra 9

Hell in the Pacific 199

Hellman, Lillian 194

Hello, Dolly! 24, 238

He Married His Wife 238

Henderson, Florence 93

Hepburn, Audrey 143, 256

Hepburn, Katharine 25, 91

Herbert, Daniel 36n63, 44, 106, 127

Here Comes Mr. Jordan 238, 240, 264

Here Comes the Groom 219

Her Private Life 119

Her Sister from Paris 236

Her Wedding Night 119, 215

Hess, Amanda 186

Heston, Charlton 22, 93, 95

Heumann, Joseph 265

Hi, Nellie 53

Hidden in the Woods 163, 215

Higashi, Sumiko 241

High Noon 160, 198

High Sierra 25, 91, 198, 216

High Society 238

Hill, Anita 250

Hill, Jonah 53

Hills Have Eyes, The 212, 244

Hilton, Paris 155

Hitchcock, Alfred 3, 11, 19, 32n10, 41,

60, 67, 72, 73, 74, 121, 122n32, 155,

160, 162, 173, 179, 182, 184, 188,

214, 215, 216, 217, 219, 231, 250,

252, 253

Hit Man 119, 255, 259

HIV see AIDS Hobson’s Choice 64

Hodet over vannet (Head Above

Water) 268

Hold-Up 37n131 Holiday 226

Holiday Inn 87

Holland, Agnieszka 251

Hollinger, Karen 20, 23

Hollis, Dave 46, 180

homage 11, 17, 48, 125n123

Home Alone 86

Homeland 118, 243

Homicide: Life on the Street 153

3 hommes et un couffin (Three Men and

Cradle) 30, 49

homophobia 239

Index homosexuality 192, 194, 262, 271; see

also lesbian remakes; queer retellings

Honeymooners, The 83, 256

Honeysuckle Rose 267

Hong Kong media 30, 49, 115, 116,

140, 153, 162, 165, 182, 187, 200,

214, 216

Honogurai mizu no soko kara (Dark

Water) 115

Hooper, Tobe 214

Hopkins, Anthony 29

Hopkins, Miriam 91

Horn, Alan 12, 13, 19

Hornaday, Ann 71

Hornblow, Deborah 20, 148, 152,

184, 185

Horrible Bosses 51

Horse, Michael 89

Horsley, Jack 176, 202

Horton, Andrew 106

Horton, Nick 15, 31, 217

Horwitz, Jane 1

Hoskins, Colin 170n141 Hostages 118

Ho-Sun Chan, Peter 116, 162, 214

Hot Money 151

Hot Pursuit 252

Hotel Imperial 160

Hottentot, The 236

House Across the Street, The 53

House of 1000 Corpses 52

House of Cards (UK) (1990) 64, 155,

183, 191

House of Cards (US) (2013–2018) 64, 65,

155, 183, 191, 192

House of Dracula 88

House of Strangers 119, 198

House of the Long Shadows 199

House of Wax (1953) 17, 18, 36n88,

54, 204

House of Wax (2005) 17, 36n88, 54, 204

House on Haunted Hill 211, 261

Houston, Whitney 24, 27, 255

Howard, Bryce Dallas 188, 189

Howell, Peter 184

Howland, Olin 88

How to Marry a Millionaire 203

Hudson, Ernie 94

Hugo, Victor 143, 207

Hulk 83, 119, 160, 246

Hull, Henry 91

Hulu 64, 65, 248

Human Desire 160

Humans 118, 163

347

Humphries, Stephen 277n149 Hunchback of Notre Dame, The 86, 143,

207, 210

Hunchback of Notre Dame 2: The Secret of

the Bell, The 207

Hundraåringen som klev ut genom fönstret

och försvann (The Hundred Year-Old

Man Who Climbed Out of the Window

and Disappeared) 268

Hunt, Jimmy 91

Hunter, Holly 271

Hunter, I.Q. 199

Huppert, Isabelle 104

Hustle, The 2, 40, 77n95, 175, 187

Huston, John 155, 185, 186

Hutcheon, Linda 30, 47, 60, 103, 111,

125n122, 179, 198, 202, 264, 274

Hutchings, Peter 17

Hutchinson, Pamela 35n54 Hutchinson, Rachael 200

I am a Camera 238

I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang 32n3 I am Frankie 118

I am Legend 243, 245, 257

Ice Castles 216

Ide, Wendy 190

idealization 80, 82, 108, 109, 110, 111,

122n4, 185

ideology 111, 138, 247

I Died a Thousand Times 25

If I Were King 236

I Like Money 199

I’ll Never Forget You 20–21 Illusionist, The 229

Imitation of Life 27, 155, 191

imperialism 5, 127, 128–129, 138–140,

158, 162, 166n5, 169n84, 169n88

Inbetweeners, The 117, 135

Incredible Hulk, The (1978–1982) 83, 94,

119, 160

Incredible Hulk, The (2008) 83, 94, 119,

160, 246

Incredible Shrinking Man, The 199

Incredible Shrinking Woman, The 199

Incredibly True Adventure of Two Girls in

Love, The 251

independent cinema see arthouse cinema Indian media 37n110, 115, 163, 165,

172n216, 214; see also Bollywood

individualism 128

Inescapable 166

Informer, The 255

348 Index Inglourious Basterds 105 Inherit the Wind 64 Initiation of Sarah, The 245 In Old Arizona 240 Inside 132 Inside Out 56 Insomnia 183, 268 Inspector Gadget 83, 264 Intermezzo 87, 115, 267 intertextuality 7, 35n32, 87, 95, 97, 138, 153 Interview 115 In the Good Old Summertime 238 In the House 33n12, 256 In the Wake of the Bounty 261 Intouchables (The Untouchables) 73, 132, 171n181, 183 In Treatment 117 Invaders from Mars 91, 187 Invasion, The 102, 243, 245, 246 Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) 69, 78n165, 93, 102, 182, 186, 210, 243, 246, 264 Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) 93, 102, 182, 186, 210 Invisible, The 268 Irene 236 irony 10, 41, 141, 159, 165, 176, 181, 212, 213, 276n66 I Saw What You Did 182 I sette magnifici gladiatori (The Seven Magnificent Gladiators) 105 Island, The 130 I Spit On Your Grave 245, 261 Israeli media 115, 117, 118, 129, 144, 163, 167n11, 214, 243, 253 It 86, 99, 210 It Ain’t Hay 237 Italian Job, The 11, 33n11, 70, 171n171, 233 Italian media 18, 24, 29, 30, 35n30, 105, 177, 198, 222n111, 234, 238 It Happened One Christmas 64, 126n127, 264, 266 It Happened One Night 111, 203, 237 I Think I Love My Wife 257 It’s a Wonderful Life 43, 64, 68, 126n127, 264, 266 It’s Alive 245 It’s My Party 262 J, LL Cool 53 Jackson County Jail 119, 215 Jackson, Curtis 29

Jackson, Peter 195 Jackson, Samuel L. 89 Jadu Tona 235 Jamaica Inn 253 James, Richard D. 234 Jameson, Frederic 121n3 Jane Eyre 252 Janghwa, Hongryeon (A Tale of Two Sisters) 131, 136 Jankel, Annabel 250 Jankowiak, Steve 49 Jannings, Emil 122–123n32 Japanese media 11, 21, 23, 28, 30, 31, 36n76, 49, 51, 74, 86, 90, 100, 114, 115, 117, 127, 131, 132, 137, 146, 158, 159, 165, 166n2, 177, 182, 189, 190, 195, 198, 199, 200, 210, 215, 230, 259 Jaws 12, 13, 33n11, 58 Jem 83 Jem and the Holograms 83 Jenkins, Patty 250 Jensen, K. Thor 262–263 Jo 164 Johansson, Scarlett 21, 23 Johnny Belinda 64 Johnson Family Vacation 256 Johnson, Brad 271 Johnson, Brian D. 9, 14, 19, 34n28, 60, 61, 102, 145, 148, 182, 243, 248, 267 Johnson, Van 27 Johnston, Amy 123n36 Jolie, Angelina 30, 261 Jones, James Earl 90, 97 Jones, J.R. 318 Jones, Vinnie 24 Joyû-rei (Don’t Look Up) 226n334 Judge Priest 214 Julius Caesar 38n153 Jumanji 74, 183 Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle 74, 183 21 Jump Street (1987–1991) 53, 84, 89, 94, 199 21 Jump Street (2012) 53, 84, 85, 94, 106, 199 22 Jump Street 89 Jungfrukällan (The Virgin Spring) 199, 212 Jungle 2 Jungle 222n111 Jungle Book, The (1967) 17, 183, 210 Jungle Book, The (2016) 17, 18, 183, 195, 209, 210 Ju-On (The Grudge) 31, 90, 114, 136, 146, 152, 210, 215

Index Jurassic Park 82, 85, 89

Jurassic World 82, 85, 89, 181

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom 89, 98

Jûsan-nin no shikaku (13 Assassins) 11

Just Go With It 187

Just My Luck 250

Just One of the Guys 203, 250

Just Visiting 89, 162, 215

Juwanna Mann 256

K-9 229

Kaerlighed ved forste hik (Love at First

Hiccough) 204, 252

Kahn, Juliet 190

Kairo (Pulse) 114, 131, 166n3, 230

Kakushi toride no san akunin (The Hidden

Fortress) 200

Kamal 226n334 Kangaroo 166

Karate Kid, The 21, 34n19, 85, 257

Karmani, Adam 99, 101

Katakuri-ke no kôfuku (The Happiness of the Katakuris) (2001) 275n27 Kath and Kim 117

Kavanaugh, Brett 250

Kawa 252

Kay, Jeremy 174

Keaton, Michael 28

Keegan, Rebecca 24

Keep it in the Family 117

Kelly, Alan 16

Kendall, James 38n162, 55

Kennedy-Karpat, Colleen 50

Kentucky 237

Kerrigan, Finola 67

Keveney, Bill 3–4, 45

Khouri, Callie 252

Kiang, Jessica 143, 152, 217, 219,

239–240, 272

Kid from Brooklyn, The 237

Kid Galahad 24, 33n13, 237

Kidman, Nicole 28, 29

3 Kids and a Queen 20

Killer Women 117

Killing, The 117, 158, 268

Kimi no na wa (Your Name) 127, 158

Kindergarten Teacher, The 253

King, Stephen 99

King and I, The 54, 110, 238

King Kong (1933) 16, 22, 61, 187,

195, 233

King Kong (1976) 16, 22, 61, 187,

195, 233

King Kong (2005) 16, 22, 178, 195, 233

349

King Lear 251

King’s Pirate, The 199

Kinnaman, Joel 158

Kinnard, Roy 23

Kinzel, Till 103

Kiss Before the Mirror, A 119, 216

Kiss Me Again 215

Kiss of Death 54, 209

Klatretøsen (The Climbing Girl) 268

Klein, Amanda Ann 39, 41, 66, 124n71,

174, 220n52

Kleine Mutti (Little Mother) 238

Klepper, Robert 193

Knight, Chris 1

Knight, Christopher 93

Knöppler, Christian 9, 40, 66, 68, 102,

108, 109, 186, 196, 211, 244, 260,

262, 264

Knox, Simone 153, 155

Koepp, David 55

Kôkaku Kidôtai (Ghost in the Shell) 21,

132, 158

Kolchak: The Night Stalker 123n38, 209

Kolker, Robert 102

Koos, Leonard 22, 36n71, 47, 66, 133,

138, 141, 147, 161, 201, 222n134

Kooyman, Ben 43

Kopell, Bernie 93

Kopelson, Arnold 175

Kopotsha, Jazmin 70

Korean media 115, 118, 131, 159,

226–227n334, 275n27

Korean war 246

Kraftidioten (In Order of Disappearance)

220n33, 268

Krämer, Lucia 3, 34n28, 37n110, 138,

139, 165, 202

Krieger, Deborah 208

Kristen, Marta 94

Kristofferson, Kris 22

Kurosawa, Akira 11, 161, 200

Kurosawa, Kiyoshi 131

Kyôryû sentai Jûrenjâ (Super Sentai

Zyuranger) 86, 117

La belle endormie (The Sleeping

Beauty) 252

La Bête Humaine (The Human Beast) 160

LaBute, Neil 184, 185

La casa muda (The Silent House) 252

La Cava, Gregory 111, 251

Lacey, Liam 98

La Chèvre (Knock on Wood) 250

La Chienne 144

350 Index Lachonis, Jon 123n36 La couturière de Lunéville (The Dressmaker

of Luneville) 237

La dame dans l’auto avec des lunettes et un

fusil (The Lady in the Car with Glasses

and a Gun) 165

Lady and the Tramp 65, 277n149 Lady Chatterley 252

Lady for a Day 193, 214, 217, 272, 273

Lady in Ermine, The 236

Lady in the Car with Glasses and a Gun,

The 165

Ladykillers, The 22, 33n16 Lady Windermere’s Fan 160

La Femme Nikita 166n2, 190, 33n18, 133,

141, 148

La hija de Juan Simón (Juan Simon’s Daughter) 275n27 Lambie, Ryan 197, 198

Lamour, Dorothy 20

L’amour l’après-midi (Love in the

Afternoon) 257

Landon, Margaret 110

Lane, Nathan 152

Lang, Brett 46, 56, 57

Lang, Fritz 144, 160

Lange, Jessica 22, 156

Lansbury, Angela 97

Lapin, Andrew 221n60 Lara Croft: Tomb Raider 174, 249

Larsson, Stieg 115, 141, 267

Last American Virgin, The 129, 144,

163, 214

Last Holiday 256

Last House on the Left, The 9, 35n30, 199,

212, 245, 266

Last Man Standing 198

Last of the Comanches 198

L.A. Takedown 156, 191, 193, 215, 217

Låt den rätte komma (Let the Right One in)

14, 29, 33n18, 42, 123n48, 146, 268

Late Night 280

Latifah, Queen 256

La Totale 49, 115, 199

Lau, Laura 252

Laura 64

Laurel and Hardy 15, 119

Lavender, Ian 91

Lavigne, Carlen 130, 141, 147, 157, 158,

166n5, 242, 260

Law, Jude 29

Lawford, Peter 27

Lawrence, D.H. 252

Lazic, Manuela 171n181

lazy remakes 10, 106, 279

Leave it to Beaver 57, 83, 94

Leavis, Frank 128

Le casse (The Burglars) 164

Le collier de la reine 234

Le Corbeau (The Raven) 160

Le dîner de cons (The Dinner Game) 30

Lee, Ang 160, 259

Lee, Brandon 123n48 Lee, Christina 122n9 Lee, Christopher 88

Lee, Roy 147, 159

Leeder, Murray 17

legacy 4, 74, 95, 96, 137, 144–145, 195,

217, 263

Legacy of Blood 215

Le grand chemin (The Grand

Highway) 250

Leguizamo, John 28

Leigh, Janet 26

Leitch, Thomas 7, 59, 65, 67, 133, 135,

152, 196, 232

Le Jouet (The Toy) 30

Le journal d’une femme de chambre (Diary

of a Chambermaid) (1964) 164

Lelio, Sebastián 116, 163, 214

Lemire, Christy 108, 202

Le Miroir à deux faces (The Mirror Has

Two Faces) 251

L’emmerdeur (A Pain in the Ass)

33n16, 160

L’empreinte de l’ange (Mark of an

Angel) 253

Le notti di Cabiria (The Nights of

Cabiria) 238

Lentz, Robert J. 25

Leone, Sergio 156, 161, 190

Leoni, Téa 22

Leonowens, Anna 110

Le patriote (The Patriot) 164

Le père Noël est une ordure (Santa Claus is

a Stinker) 251

Leprechaun 256

Leprechaun in the Hood 256

L’équipage (Flight into Darkness) 162, 214

Le retour de Martin Guerre (The Return of

Martin Guerre) 151

Le salaire de la peur (Wages of Fear) 187

lesbian remakes 194, 250, 251, 252; see

also homosexuality; queer retellings

Les diaboliques 208

Les Fugitifs (The Fugitives) 116, 162, 216

Les liaisons dangereuses (Dangerous

Liaisons) 203

Index Les Misérables 70, 72 Les Revenants (The Returned) 118, 148 Les visiteurs (The Visitors) 89, 162, 215 Let Me In 14, 25, 29, 33n18, 42, 123n48, 146, 156, 157, 262, 268 Let’s Do It Again 236, 239 Let’s Face It 236 Letter, The 160 13th Letter, The 160 Letter to Three Wives, A 64 Lev, Peter 240 Levin, Ira 28 Le voile bleu 189 Levy, Emanuel 134, 150, 272 Lewis, Al 94 Lewis, Michael 18 L’homme qui aimait les femmes (The Man Who Loved Women) 152 Lie, The 253 Lifeboat 198 Life on Mars (UK) (2006–2007) 117, 154 Life on Mars (US) (2008–2009) 117, 154, 155 Lifepod 198 Lifetime channel 43 lightning in a bottle 4, 58–59, 152, 219 Liliom 237 Lim, Bliss Cua 35n32, 66 Limbacher, James 45, 53, 182, 271 Limey, The 25 Lindner, Oliver 95, 263, 270, 271 Lindsay, Joan 189, 248 Lion King, The (1994) 1, 40, 86, 90, 124n58, 177, 206 Lion King, The (2019) 1, 18, 21, 28, 40, 73, 86, 90, 97, 124n58, 177, 180, 192, 206, 221n62 Lipper, Joanna 251 literalism 132–135, 142 Little Caesar 255 Little Dorrit 112 Little Fugitive 251 Little Mermaid, The 25, 143, 159, 206, 207, 255 Little Miss Big 20 Little Night Music, A 238, 267 Little Shop of Horrors 239 Little Women (1917) 120, 249 Little Women (1933) 88 Little Women (1949) 88 Little Women (1994) 251 Little Women (2017) 120, 249, 251 Little Women (2018) 120, 249, 251, 270 Little Women (2019) 43, 120, 249, 251

351

Litvak, Anatole 162, 214 live-action remakes 1, 2, 10, 17, 21, 23, 24, 27, 40, 47, 54, 61, 69, 71, 72, 82, 83, 86, 113, 123n48, 132, 158, 159, 174, 180, 183, 188, 191, 195, 206, 209, 211, 221n60, 259, 253, 261, 270, 277n149, 278n170 Lives of a Bengal Lancer, The 198 Lizardi, Ryan 17, 82, 109, 122n4, 211 Lizzie McGuire 65, 90, 97, 122n27 Lizzie McGuire Movie, The 204 Lockhart, June 94 Lodger, The 34n21, 88 Loft (2008) 90, 163, 215, 252 Loft (2010) 252 Loft (2014) 90, 163, 215 Lol (France) (2012) 116, 162, 204, 213 LOL (US) (2012) 116, 162, 204, 213 Lola rennt (Run Lola Run) 252 Lolita 273 London After Midnight 36n74, 214 Longest Yard, The 92, 202 Longtime Companion 262 Loock, Kathleen 47, 69, 78n165, 85, 95, 106, 246 Lopez, Kristen 1 Los martes, orquídeas (On Tuesdays: Orchids) 115, 238 Lost 123n36 Lost Chord, The 162, 215 Lost Horizon 33n17, 201, 237 Lost in Space (1965–1968) 65, 83, 84, 94 Lost in Space (1998) 83, 94 Lost in Space (2018–) 65, 84 Lost in Translation 23 Lost Man, The 255, 258 Lost Patrol 198 Lost World, The 34n22, 124n58 Louis 19, Le Roi des Ondes (Louis 19, King of the Airwaves) 222n111 Love 88 Love Affair (1939) 34n24, 215 Love Affair (1994) 34n24 Love Boat, The 45 Loved By You 165 Love Don’t Cost a Thing 85, 204, 256 Love is News 257 Love is on the Air 53 Love Letter, The 116, 162, 214 Lowe, Rob 37n131 Lowthorpe, Philippa 253 Luberto, Asher 221n63 Lubitsch, Ernst 160, 215 Lucas, George 45

352 Index Lucas, Matthew 2

Lucy 23

Lugosi, Bela 81

Luhrmann, Baz 28, 104, 204, 234, 265

Lukas, Scott A. 35n33, 139, 189

Lumiere brothers 113

Luna, Diego 26

Luther 166n2

L Word, The 249

L Word: Generation Q, The 249

Lynn, Diana 91

Lyons, John 234

Lyttelton, Oli 217, 219, 239–240, 272

Maas, Dick 163, 215

Macaulay, Sean 233

MacGyver 84

MacLachlan, Kyle 89

Macy, William H. 153, 155

Mad About You 86, 90, 97, 165

Madame Hyde (Mrs. Hyde) 104

Mad Money 252

Madonna 24, 30

Maggenti, Maria 251, 254

Magnificent Eleven, The 105

Magnificent Seven Ride!, The 105

Magnificent Seven, The (1960) 11, 30,

49, 105, 121, 137, 142, 182, 187, 195,

196, 200, 210

Magnificent Seven, The (1998–2000) 105

Magnificent Seven, The (2016) 100, 187,

196, 200, 210

Maher, Kevin 32n4, 124n70

Mahin, John Lee 185

Mahmud, Shahnaz 114

Maid Marian and Her Merry Men 68

Major and the Minor 91

Major Payne 73

Male Animal, The 238

Maleficent 18, 210, 261

Maltese Falcon, The (1931) 24n22, 54,

119, 124n58, 155, 182, 198, 279

Maltese Falcon, The (1941) 54, 155, 182

Mame 238

Man About the House 117, 158

Manchurian Candidate, The (1962) 176,

197, 233, 243, 244

Manchurian Candidate, The (2004) 176,

197, 233, 243, 244, 263

Mander, Miles 122n32

Man from U.N.C.L.E., The 83

Maniac 209

Man in the Attic 34n21

Man in the Dark 18

Mann, Michael 156, 191, 192, 193,

215, 217

Manne, Robert 128, 129, 132, 140

Mansfield Park 251

Manxman, The 73

Man of Steel 209, 212

Män som hatar kvinnor (The Girl with

the Dragon Tattoo) 113, 135, 141,

156, 171n171, 267–268

Man Who Broke 1,000 Chains, The 32n3 Man Who Knew Too Much, The 22, 73,

155, 160, 214, 217

Man Who Lived Twice, The 18

Man Who Loved Women, The 152

Man Who Played God, The 87

March Sisters at Christmas, The 196

Marcovitch, Heather 130, 141, 155,

166n5

Margheriti, Antonio 226n334 Marianne 88

Marie Antoinette 234, 250

Marked Men 213, 214

marketing 4, 13, 16, 21, 22, 28, 36n81,

45, 56, 57, 58, 67, 72, 153, 168n59,

196; see also advertising; branding;

commercialism; prepublicity

Mark of the Vampire 36n74, 214

Marmysz, John 35n33, 139, 189

Marriage Circle, The 215

Married for Life 165

Married . . . with Children 165

Marsden, James 131

Marshall, George 20, 215

Marshall, P. David 21

Marshall, Penny 251

Martens, James 65, 259

Martin, Andrea 92

Martin, Dean 27, 71, 155

Martin, Steve 2

Martyrs 136, 169n82 Marvel 57

Mary 73, 122, 214

Mary Poppins 92, 97

Mary Poppins Returns 92, 97

masculinity 171n167, 244

M*A*S*H*, 63

Masquerade in Mexico 20, 25

Massey, Raymond 96

Master Gunfighter, The 199, 200

Matchmaker, The 24, 238

Matrix, The 229

Maverick 83, 91

Mavis, Paul 4, 221n99 Maxwell, Erin 200

Index Mayron, Melanie 251

Mazdon, Lucy 12, 19, 31, 45, 47, 48, 49,

75n18, 138, 139, 157, 161, 169n88,

169n97, 170n134, 267

Mazhayethum Munpe 226n334 McBride, Jim 31

McBride, Joseph 266, 273

McCarey, Leo 215

McCarthy, Claire 253

McCarthy, Kevin 93

McCarthy, Melissa 22

McCarthyism 246

McCormack, Eric 90

McDonald, Neil 190

McDonald, Soraya 230, 267

McDougal, Stuart 106

McDowell, Walter 56

McFadyen, Stuart 170n141 McGavin, Darren 123n38 McGovern, Elizabeth 149

McGowan, Rose 175

McGowan, Todd 136

McHale’s Navy 83

McKern, Leo 68

McLean, Ralph 2

McLevy, Alex 148

McLure, Marc 89 McQueen, Steve 30

McTiernan, John 96

Mechanic, The 212

Mee, Laura 58, 60, 71, 73, 107,

122n5, 173

Meehan, Paul 26

Meet Joe Black 22, 32n5, 193

Meet Me After the Show 238

Meet the Fockers 269

Meet the Parents (1992) 222n111, 257

Meet the Parents (2000) 33n12,

222n111, 257

Meinert, Rudolf 226n334 melancholy 81

Melford, George 50

Meliava, Tariel 19

Méliès, Georges 113

melodrama 22, 27, 43, 45, 72, 109, 155,

182, 191, 197, 199, 201, 235, 249,

253, 257, 269, 272; see also women’s

pictures

Melrose Place 84

Melville, Hermann 186

Men Behaving Badly 117

Mendelson, Scott 192–193, 208

Men in Black 86, 280

Men in Black: International 86, 280

353

Menon, Gautham Vasudev 226n334 Menschen im Hotel 27

mental health 105, 259, 260, 261, 262

Menzel, Idina 197

Mera, Miguel 35n33, 40, 139

merchandizing 16, 61–62, 206, 230; see

also branding

Merry Widow, The 122n17, 236

Messing, Debra 90

Mestres, Ricardo 175

metareferences see self-referential remakes MeToo 6, 249, 254, 274

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer see MGM Metz, Christian 216

Meuel, David 26

Mexican media 18, 115, 131, 163, 214,

254, 259

Meyers, Nancy 178, 251

MGM 26, 27, 49, 54

Miami Vice (1984–1990) 11, 83, 209

Miami Vice (2006) 11, 83, 209, 212

Mickey, Donald, Goofy: The Three

Musketeers 207

Mickey’s Christmas Carol 54, 206

Midler, Bette 22, 24, 28, 29, 197, 270

Midnight 20

Midsommer (Midsummer) 268

Midsummer Night’s Rave, A 203

Mighty Morphin Power Rangers 86, 117

Milberg, Doris 58, 62, 100, 201

Mildred Pierce 22

Miles, Ellie 109

Milky Way, The 237

Miller, Gregory 101

Miller, Michael 215

Milligan, Andy 215

Minder 2, 72

Minhas, Raman 165

Miracle on 34th Street 54, 272

Miracle Worker, The 92

Mirbeau, Octave 164

Mirror Has Two Faces, The 251

Mirror Mirror 229

Mirrors 115

Misek, Richard 19

Misfits, The 250

misogyny 28, 107, 108, 244, 248; see also

sexism

Miss Bala 253

Miss Bluebird 119, 215

Mississippi 236

Miss Sadie Thompson 18, 22, 201, 236

Mister Magoo’s Christmas Carol 206

354 Index Mistresses 33n11 Mitchum, Robert 93, 95 Mixed Nuts 251 Moby Dick 88, 186 Modern Twain Story: The Prince and the Pauper, A 207 modernization 21, 28, 59, 84–85, 122n16, 128, 166n5, 197, 208, 211, 231, 234, 241, 242, 248, 254, 258, 259, 261, 263, 264, 265, 273, 274 Mod Squad, The 83 Mogambo 26–27, 91, 185–186, 214 Moïsi, Dominique 128, 129 Mol, Gretchen 155 Monk, Claire 28 Mon père, ce héros (My Father the Hero) 89, 115 Moonlight Mile 252 Moon Over Miami 237 Moonstruck 46 Moore, Clarence 3 Moore, Demi 143 Moore, Julianne 32n4, 156 Moorhouse, Jocelyn 251 moral ambiguity 133, 136, 137, 145, 261 morality 134, 135, 137, 194, 239, 241, 244, 260, 263 moralizing 137 Moran, Albert 149, 153 Moran, Robert 1 More the Merrier, The 264 Moretz, Chloë Grace 25 Mork, Christian 58 Morris, Brogan 57, 58, 74 Morris, Wayne 53 Morrison, James 48, 111 Mostly Martha 34n20 Mother, May I Sleep With Danger? 86, 92, 253, 269 Mother’s Day 85, 209 Mou gaan dou (Infernal Affairs) 30, 49, 115, 153, 182 Moulin Rouge 236 Moylan, Brian 2, 67, 149, 152 Mr. Deeds 21, 130 Mr. Deeds Goes to Town 21, 130 Mr. Music 237 Mr. Wong, Detective 34n25, 177 Ms. Scrooge 256 Much Ado About Nothing (1993) 28, 203 Much Ado About Nothing (2012) 203 Mudhalvan 226n334 Muir, John Kenneth 78n144 Mujeres Asesinas (Killer Women) 117

Mulan (1998) 1, 86, 159, 249 Mulan (2020) 1, 86, 159, 249, 253 Mullally, Megan 90 Mullins, Jenna 74 multiplexes 10, 49, 60, 141, 232, 279, 280 Multiplicity 42 Mummy, The (1932) 14, 21, 86 Mummy, The (1999) 21, 85 Mummy, The (2017) 21, 86 Mumy, Bill 94 Muni, Paul 94, 96 Muppet Christmas Carol, The 54, 206 Muppet Treasure Island 54 Moon Over Miami 237 Murder in the Blue Room 237 Murder on the Orient Express (1974) 2, 28 Murder on the Orient Murder! 73 Express (2001) 28 Murder on the Orient Express (2017) 2, 28 Murder! 73 Murphy Brown 84, 249, 254 Murphy, Eddie 27, 256, 258 Murphy, Geoff 95 Murphy, Matt 95 Murray, Bill 37n131, 94 Murray, Noel 234 Murray, Robin 265 Murugadoss, A.R. 226n334 Muse, Clarence 88, 266 Musetto, V.A. 19 music see soundtrack musicals 6, 17, 18, 22, 23, 27, 29, 43, 51, 63, 88, 91, 92, 108, 109, 115, 119, 122n32, 157, 177, 181, 191, 198, 201, 205, 208, 214, 219, 220n33, 228, 233, 234, 235–240, 250, 257, 269, 271, 275n27 Mutiny of the Bounty, The 261 Mutiny on the Bounty 261 My Big Fat Greek Life 63 My Big Fat Greek Wedding 63 My Bloody Valentine 18, 85 My Fair Lady 143, 203, 237 My Father the Hero 89, 115 My Favorite Martian 32n10, 83, 93 My Man Godfrey 111, 271 My Own Private Idaho 203 My Sister Eileen 238 My Sister’s Keeper 142 Mystery of the Wax Museum 17, 54 Nakata, Hideo 226n334 Naked 268

Index Naken (Naked) 268 Narcos 170n151 Naremore, James 148, 170n149 narrative expansion 174

Nashawaty, Chris 113

Natale, Richard 272

National Lampoon’s Vacation 256

Nattevagten (Nightwatch) 116, 162, 213

Natural, The 46

Nayak: The Real Hero 226n334 Ndalianis, Angela 113

Negulesco, Jean 215

Nella stretta morsa del ragno (Web of the Spider) 226n334 Nestruck, J. Kelly 178

Netflix 18, 28, 43, 64, 65, 73, 145,

150, 155

Neuf Mois (Nine Months) 115, 233

Never Say Never Again 88

Newby, Richard 73

Newman, Kim 122n17 New Poseidon Adventure, The 210

Newton, Thandie 256

Newton-John, Olivia 24

New Zealand media 95, 117, 149,

209, 252

Nicholson, Jack 30, 153

Nick at Nite 231

Nid de guêpes (The Nest) 164

Niederpruem, Clare 251

Nigerian media 200

Night of the Demons 92

Night of the Living Dead 199, 201

Night Stalker 123n38, 209

Nightwatch 116, 162, 213

Nine Months 115, 233

1984, 209, 221n99

9/11, 47, 102, 197, 242–247, 248, 259,

260, 261, 271; see also terrorism

Nine 29

Nine to Five 51

90210, 84

Ninotchka 238

Noah, Trevor 139

Nolan, Christopher 136

Nolte, Nick 95, 153

Nordic media 158; see also Danish media; Swedish media Nordic-noir 158, 267

No Reservations 34n20 Norman, Barry 152

Norton, Barry 122–123n32 Norton, Edward 94

Nosferatu 33n18

355

Nosferatu the Vampyre 33n18 No Strings Attached 229

Notorious 34–35n29, 187

Notting Hill 51, 52

Novak, Matt 125n113 Novello, Ivor 88

No Way Out 46

Nowlan, Gwendolyn Wright 23, 25,

194, 239

Nowlan, Robert 23, 25, 194, 239

Noy, Wilfred 162, 215

nuclear war 264, 265, 271

nudity 135, 136

Nueve reinas (Nine Queens) 34n22, 115,

124n58, 190

Nuit blanche (Sleepless Night) 34n25, 177

Number 17, 73

Number 96, 117

Nutty Professor, The 27, 256, 257

O 203

Oakes, Matt 221n61 Oakes, Simon 14, 146, 151, 156

Oberon, Merle 143

Obst, Lynda 46

Ocean’s 11 (1960) 22, 27, 54, 155,

186, 249

Ocean’s 11 (2001) 22, 25, 27, 54, 105,

183, 186, 249

Ocean’s 8, 22, 27, 54, 70, 74, 155–156,

186, 249

O’Connor, John 65, 78n144 Odd Couple, The 269

Odd Man Out 255, 258

Oedipus 48

Offerman, Nick 53, 106

Office, The 65, 117, 154, 172n198, 192

Okina, Megumi 136

Old Heidelberg 235

Oldman, Gary 143

Oliver! 235

Oliver Twist (1912) 235

Oliver Twist (1948) 111–112 Oliver Twist (1974) 206

Oliver Twist (1985) 111

Olivier, Laurence 143

Olympus Has Fallen 229

Omega Man, The 243, 257

Omen, The 2, 3, 33n11, 33n14, 94,

210, 245

Once a Thief 116, 162, 216

Once You Kiss a Stranger . . ., 51

One Day at a Time 64, 84, 249, 259

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest 235

356 Index One Hour With You 215

O’Neill, Dick 266

One Million B.C. 23

One Million Years B.C. 23

One Missed Call 115, 177

One Sunday Afternoon 216, 219, 237

One Way Passage 18

opera 18, 47, 104, 240

Operation Petticoat 63

Ophelia 203, 249, 253

Oplev, Niels Arden 113

opportunity cost 44, 45, 54, 62, 70, 101

Opposite Sex, The 238

Orange is the New Black 28

Ordeal by Innocence 65

Oriento kyuukou satsujin jiken (Murder on

the Orient Express) 28

originality 6, 7, 10, 34n28, 35n34, 46,

52, 100, 138, 159, 174, 175, 177, 178,

179, 180, 181, 189

Orme, Terry 148

Orphée 237

Orr, Christopher 28

Oscar Wilde 229

Osmond, Ken 94

Othello 203

Other Guys, The 229

Our House 166

Outland 198

Out of the Past 91

Out-of-Towners, The 269

Outrage, The 198, 200

Outrageous Fortune 117

Outside Chance 119, 215

Outside the Law 214

Outward Bound 35n30 Overboard 21

Owen, Rob 21, 233

Ozu, Yasujirô 36n76, 226n334 Pacino, Al 22, 155, 156

Package, The 187

Page, Ellen 26

Palance, Jack 25

Palmer, R. Barton 39, 41, 66, 124n71,

174, 220n52

Palmer, Teresa 188

Pang, Danny 163, 215

Pang, Oxide Chun 163, 215

Panzarella, Steve 271

Paradise 250

Paramount Pictures 20, 50, 217, 219

paranoia 243, 244, 259, 263

Parchesky, Jennifer 270

Paré, Michael 92

Parenthood 63

Parent Trap, The 33, 88, 123n35, 182, 251

Parham, Thomas 174

Parinda (Bird) 163, 172n216, 214

Park, Myoungsook 12, 31, 48, 49, 62,

66, 123n43, 163, 169n84

Parking 238

parody 9, 119, 199, 200

Parts: The Clonus Horror 130

Passion 134

Passion Fish 171n167

Patriot, The 164

patriotism 56, 243

Paxton, Sara 266

peak remake 70–71, 101

Pearce, Guy 22

Peck, Gregory 93, 95

pedophilia 273

Peeples 257

Peggy Sue Got Married 229

Peirce, Kimberly 252, 253

Penn, Sean 29

Pépé le Moko 49, 237

Peppermint 249

Perez, Rodrigo 217, 219, 239, 272

Perfect Murder, A 182

Perigard, Mark 108

Perkins, Anthony 26, 271

Perkins, Claire 194, 243

Perry, Dennis 17

Peter’s Friends 176

Pete’s Dragon (1977) 69, 188, 211, 278

Pete’s Dragon (2016) 18, 69, 188,

211, 278

Pet Sematary 166, 211, 261

Phantom Fiend, The 88

Phantom of the Rue Morgue 18

Phasma Ex Machina 166

Phat Beach 256

Phelan, Laurence 42

Philadelphia 262

Philadelphia Experiment, The 92

Philadelphia Story, The 238

Phillips, Ian 222n111

philosophy 102, 189, 246, 247, 261

Pickwick Papers, The 112

Picnic at Hanging Rock 65, 189, 248, 250

Picoult, Jodi 142

Pidgeon, Walter 27

Pierce, David 50

Pinkerton, Nick 174

Piranha (1978) 18, 33n11, 244

Piranha (2010) 18, 244

Index Pitt, Brad 22, 27, 70, 155 Pittenger, Frank 275n33 Pixar 56, 57 plagiarism 52 Plainsman, The 33n16 Plaire, aimer et courir vite (Sorry Angel) 262 Planes, Trains and Automobiles 51, 85 Planet of the Apes (1968) 16, 93, 209, 263, 271 Planet of the Apes (2001) 16, 93, 95, 209, 263, 271 Plasketes, George 98 Pleasure Seekers, The 215, 238 Pocketful of Miracles, A 193, 214, 217, 272, 273 Poe, Edgar Allan 18 Point Break (1991) 2, 34n23, 51, 86, 188 Point Break (2015) 2, 34n23, 86, 188 pointless remakes 2, 3, 10, 33n15, 59, 97, 98, 118, 124n60, 173, 182, 260, 269 Point of No Return 33n18, 133, 141, 148, 152, 166n2, 190, 223n155 Poiré, Jean-Marie 89, 162, 215 Poitier, Sidney 255, 258 Poldark 84, 92, 231 Pollock, Tom 185 Pollyanna 256 Polly: Comin’ Home! 256 Poltergeist 2, 18, 33n13, 175, 183, 184, 210 Poor Little Rich Girl, The 235 Poots, Imogen 273 Pop network 231 Pork Pie 95 pornography 104, 105, 200 Poseidon Adventure, The 210 postfeminism 243, 250; see also feminism postmodernism 7, 35n31, 109, 121, 247 Potts, Annie 94 Power, Tyrone 21 Power Rangers 86 Pratt, Chris 30 Preacher’s Wife, The 24, 251, 256 preawareness 57, 58, 202; see also prepublicity Preminger, Otto 160 prepublicity 28, 96, 97, 98, 254; see also advertising; branding; commercialism; marketing; preawareness Presley, Elvis 24 prestige 17, 50, 51, 179, 185, 192, 193 Prestige, The 229 Pretty Woman 46

357

Price, Vincent 91, 204 Prime Suspect 269 Prince and the Pauper, The 207 Prince and the Surfer, The 207 Prince Avalanche 268 Princess O’Hara 237 Prisoner 254, 265 Prisoner, The 233 Prisoner of Zenda, The 173 Private War of Major Benson, The 73 Producers, The 251 production values 4, 5, 12–13, 31, 146, 147, 150–152, 157, 271 Profumo di Donna (Scent of a Woman) 222n111 Proyas, Alex 123n48 Pryor, Richard 30, 255, 258 psychiatry 10, 92, 193, 261, 262 Psycho (1960) 3, 19, 26, 33n15, 33–34n18, 41, 52, 60, 63, 67, 69, 121, 124n60, 173, 179, 180, 184, 187, 188, 216, 231, 232, 261, 271 Psycho (1998) 3, 19, 26, 33n15, 33–34n18, 41, 52, 59, 60, 63, 67, 69, 70, 73, 121, 124n60, 173, 179, 180, 184, 187, 188, 211, 212, 231, 232, 261–262, 271 psychology 7, 82, 193, 260, 261, 262, 268 public broadcasting 111 Puglia, Frank 88 Pulse 114, 131, 166n3, 230 puritanism 137 Puttnam, David 175 Pygmalion 143, 203, 237 Quand te tues-tu? (When Do You Commit Suicide?) 164 Quarantine 33n14, 115, 230 Queenan, Joe 246 Queen of Sheba, The 240 Queer as Folk 117, 137 Queer Eye 84 Queer Eye for the Straight Guy 84 queer gaze 254 queer retellings 173, 252, 25; see also homosexuality; lesbian remakes queer-swaps 98 Quick Change 37n131 Quiet American, The 243 Quigley, Linnea 92 Quinn, Anthony 1 Quinn, Karl 17, 54, 61 Quo Vadis (1901) 240

358 Index Rice, Christine 20

Richards, Kim 94

Richest Girl in the World, The 18, 237

Riddlehoover, Matt 232, 260

Rabid (1977) 214, 253

Riding High 36n74, 88, 214, 219, 266

Rabid (2019) 253

Riegler, Thomas 244, 246

Rabin, Nathan 29

Rihanna 70

race-bending see race-swapping Riley, Sam 29

race-swapping 74, 210, 255–259

Ring, The 74, 210, 267

Race to Witch Mountain 94

Ringu (The Ring) 74, 210, 267

racism 159; see also whitewashing Rio Bravo 24, 91, 199, 213, 214

Radiohead 234

Rio Lobo 24, 91, 213, 214

Railway Children, The (1968) 88, 91

Rise of the Planet of the Apes 263

Railway Children, The (2000) 91

risk 12, 40, 41, 55, 56, 57, 69–75, 174,

Raimi, Sam 146, 215, 217

194, 230, 234, 247, 272, 274

Rain 18

risk-aversion 4, 40, 44–48, 101, 175,

Raisin in the Sun, A 64

181, 219, 230, 253, 281

Rajan, Amol 135

Risky Business 251

Rake 118

Ritchie, Guy 30, 197

Randle, Chris 186–187, 217

Riverdale 208

rape 107

Roadgames 166

Rapfogel, Jed 15, 37n126, 217

Road Within, The 252

Rapold, Nicolas 148, 201

Robbins, Jane 55

Rashômon (Rashomon) 198, 200

Roberts, Eric 150

ratings see censorship; classification Roberts, Jerry 38n153 Raw, Laurence 20–21 Roberts, Julia 22, 26, 27, 155

Rawitsch, Elizabeth 165

Robertson, Kimmy 89

Razor’s Edge, The 269

Robin and Marian 93, 95, 98

Ready Player One 99

Robin Hood (1922) 87

Reagan, Ronald 53, 59, 242

Robin Hood (1973) 68

Rear Window 199, 204

Robin Hood (1984–1986) 95

Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm 235

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves 21, 68,

[Rec], 33

93, 98

Red Dawn 34n24, 220n33, 243

Robinson, Angela 251, 254

Red Dust 27, 91, 185, 214

Robinson, Ann 93

Redford, Robert 69, 70

Robinson, Holly 94

Red River 34n20 Robinson, Juneko 102, 246

Reeves, Keanu 28, 265

Robinson, Will 94

Reflections of Murder 208

Robinson Crusoe On Mars 197

Reinholtz, Erin 213

RoboCop 176, 184, 194

Reitman, Ivan 95, 107

Rocco e i magnifici 7 (Outlaws) 105

Reitman, Jason 95, 97

religion 96, 244, 275n33; see also biblical Rocketman 280

Rockford Files, The 2

epic; Christianity

Rocky and His Friends 83

reminiscence bump 82, 107

Rocky IV 52

Renoir, Jean 144

Rogers, Ginger 27

Returned, The 118, 148

role reprisals 87, 95, 98

Return of the Seven 105

Rollerball 204

return on investment 4, 21, 42, 44, 53,

Rolls, Alistair 40, 50, 52

54, 62, 239

Roman, James 264

Return to Treasure Island 54

Roman Holiday 204

revisionist remakes 5, 11, 81, 110,

Roman Scandals 237

126n127, 196

Romeo + Juliet 28, 104, 203, 204, 234, 265

Reykjavik-Rotterdam 268

Romeo and Juliet 203, 204

Reynolds, Burt 92, 152

Quo Vadis (1951) 187, 240

Quo Vadis (1985) 34n29, 187

Index Romeo Must Die 203 Romero, George 245 Roommate, The 51 Room Service 237 Rooney, Mickey 23 Rooster Cogburn 19, 198 Roots 21, 84, 233 Rope 19 Roseanne 84, 89, 249 Rose-Marie 236 Rosemary’s Baby 257 Rosenberg, Alyssa 1, 3 Rosenthal, Dave 2 Ross, Herb 273 Roth, Eli 118–119 Roth, Joe 44 Rough Night 253 Rourke, Mickey 29 royalties 50, 51–52, 121, 201; see also attribution Rozema, Patricia 251 Rubin, Stanley 20 Rudd, Paul 28, 30 Ruffalo, Mark 29 Ruggles of Red Gap 236 runtime 19, 59, 192, 193, 233 Runyon, Damon 217 Russell, Jane 23 Russell, Nipsey 94 Russell, Rosalind 29 Ryan, Danielle 30, 136, 137 Ryan, Meg 29 Sabrina 177 Sabrina, the Teenage Witch 65, 86, 210, 249 Sadie Thompson 18, 201, 236, 255 Sahara 198 Saidoweizu (Sideways) 165, 259 Saldana, Zoe 257 Salem’s Lot 245 Salome 240 Salt, Barry 26, 211 Samson and Delilah 240 Sandberg, Eric 50 Sanderson, Monday 79n181 Sandler, Adam 21 Sanford and Son 116, 158, 255, 259 Sang-hoon, Ahn 226–227n334 sanitized remakes 5, 31, 42, 109–112, 128, 130, 135–138, 144, 205, 207, 208 Sanjek, David 241 Santa Clause, The 272 Saporito, Jeff 116, 145, 154, 156, 167n12

359

Sarandon, Chris 93 Sargeants Three 199 Satanic Rites of Dracula, The 88 Satan Met a Lady 34n22, 54, 119, 124n58, 198, 199 satire 97, 121, 122n4, 199, 213, 247, 258 Scahill, Andrew 212, 213 Scandi-noir 158, 267, 268 Scared Stiff 215 Scarface 22, 155, 196, 197, 208, 279 scarier remakes 210–212, 265; see also gorier remakes Scarlet Letter, The 143 Scarlet Street 144, 160 Scars of Dracula 88 Scary Movie 256 Scent of a Woman 222n111 Scheer, Ronald 126n127, 264, 266 Schoenaerts, Matthias 90 Scholz, Anne-Marie 249 Schultz, Dwight 94 Schweishelm, Kathryn 38n147 Scooby-Doo! in Arabian Nights 207 Scorsese, Martin 95, 153, 156, 161 Scott, A.O. 168n148, 168n59 Scott, Ken 116, 163, 215 Scott, Tony 188 Scoundrels 117 Scream 256 Scrooge in the Hood 257 Scrooge, or, Marley’s Ghost 166 Scrooged 210 Sea Beast, The 88, 186 Sea Fiend, The 122–123n32 Sea Wolf, The 198 Second Bureau 4 Secret Garden, The 251 Secret in their Eyes 34n26, 42, 113 Secret Life of Pets, The 51 Secret Life of Pets 2, The 280 Secret State 188, 196 Seidler, Ellen 252, 254 self-referential remakes 53, 98, 106; see also Easter eggs Selleck, Tom 30 Sense and Sensibility 160 Sepinwall, Alan 3, 184, 185 sequels 11, 13, 16–17, 23, 35n31, 36n63, 39, 44, 45, 46, 55, 56, 57, 61, 69, 71, 72, 83, 84, 89, 97, 102, 106, 108, 124n71, 138, 177, 179, 180, 181, 188, 195, 207, 230, 265, 280, 281 Sergei, Ivan 92 Seven Brides for Seven Brothers 63

360 Index Seven Keys to Baldpate 199 Seven Year Itch, The 161 Sex and the City 83 sex appeal 22, 23 sexier remakes 135, 208, 210, 212, 241, 261 sexism 186; see also misogyny sex-swapping 22, 27, 54, 74, 98, 107, 114, 126n127, 155, 165, 166, 186, 194, 195, 230, 249, 252, 253, 254, 264 sexual politics 273, 274; see also feminism Shaft (1971) 11, 88, 123n35, 255 Shaft (2000) 11, 88, 123n35 Shaft (2019) 88, 123n35, 280 Shaggy Dog, The (1959) 265 Shakespeare, William 28, 38n153, 50, 98, 103, 104, 196, 197, 203, 206, 207, 234, 251, 252, 273 Shakespeare: The Animated Tales 207 Shame (Australia) (1988) 165 Shame (USA) (1992) 198 Shameless 117, 153, 155 Shane 165, 198 Shankar, S. 226n334 Sharp, Luke 254 Shaun of the Dead 199, 201 Shaw, George Bernard 143 Sheen, Martin 30 Shelley, Mary 98 Shen nu (The Goddess) 226n334 Shennan, Paddy 2, 72 Shepard, Lucius 151 She-Ra and the Princesses of Power 84 Sherak, Tom 1 She-Ra: Princess of Power 84 Sherlock Gnomes 207 Sherlock Holmes 98, 197, 207 Sherlock Holmes in the Great Murder Mystery 18 She’s All That 203 She’s Gotta Have It 64 She’s The Man 196, 203 She’s Working Her Way Through College 238 Shichinin no samurai (Seven Samurai) 30, 49, 100, 104, 137, 182, 187, 195, 200 Shimizu, Takashi 152, 162, 215 Shining, The 210 Shipp, John Wesley 92 Shirley Temple’s Storybook 143 Shivers 214 Shop Around the Corner, The 178, 238, 251, 272 Shore, Pauly 174

Shore Leave 236

shot-for-shot remakes 2, 3, 59, 173–174,

179, 194, 232 Show Boat 235 Shutter 115, 131 Sideways 159, 165, 259 Sigaw (The Echo) 115 Sigoloff, Marc 275n53 silent film 4, 15, 18, 25, 26, 32n2, 35n54, 36n74, 36n76, 50, 54, 58, 85, 87, 88, 90, 112, 119, 120, 143, 160, 162, 164, 166, 196, 213, 214, 215, 216, 226n334, 234, 235, 236, 237, 241, 252 Silent House 252 Siler, Megan 252, 254 Silk Stockings 238 Sim, Stuart 276n66 Simanton, Keith 228 Simon and Garfunkle 234 Simpson, K.T. 2, 40 Simpsons, The 83 Simpsons Movie, The 83 Sinatra, Frank 27, 71, 155 Singer, Leigh 138, 139, 191 Single Black Female 257 Single White Female 51, 257 13 Sins 34n21 Sirk, Douglas 32n4, 155, 191 Sisters 245 Skam (Shame) 118, 140, 268 SKAM Austin 118, 140, 268 Skins 117, 137 Skvirsky, Salomé Aguilera 109 Skyscraper 52 Slap, The 90, 116 slavish remakes 10, 33n18, 179–180, 190, 191, 218, 279 Sleeping Beauty 210, 252, 261 Sleepless 34n25, 177 Sleepless in Seattle 32n10 Sleuth 92, 97, 98, 175 Sluizer, George 116, 143, 144, 162, 215, 218 Smith, Iain 138 Smith, Jaclyn 89 Smith, Jaden 21, 257 Smith, Liz 89 Smith, Will 190, 257, 258 Smurfs: A Christmas Carol, The 206 Snakes on a Train 200 Snow White and the Huntsman 209, 229 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs 209, 229 Snyder, Zack 188

Index social mores 274 Soderbergh, Steven 25, 37n126, 155 Solaris 25, 183 Solomon and Sheba 240 Solstice 268 Solyaris (Solaris) 25, 183 Some Like It Hot 160 Sommarnattens leende (Smiles of a Summer Night) 238, 267 Sommersby 151 Somos lo que hay (We Are What We Are) 115, 131 Song is Born, A 23, 177, 214, 238, 240 Son of Captain Blood 95 Sons of Katie Elder, The 199 Sorcerer 187 Sorority Girl 203 Soul, David 94 Soul Plane 256 sound remakes see talkie remakes soundtrack 67, 204, 234–235, 240 Southern Yankee, A 51 Spacey, Kevin 155, 191 Spanish media 33n14, 90, 115, 118, 122–123n32, 133, 230, 275n27, 280 Sparkle 24, 27, 233 special effects 9, 13, 14–15, 16, 19, 36n71, 59, 61, 135, 151, 178, 186, 190, 191, 193, 207; see also CGI Spelling, Tori 92 Spheeris, Penelope 250 Spider-Man 177, 209, 246 Spider-Man 2, 246 Spider-Man 3, 177, 246 Spielberg, Steven 90, 99, 161, 245 spinoffs 13, 65, 89, 97, 108, 124n71 Spoilers, The 20 Spoorloos (The Vanishing) 116, 131, 136, 143, 215, 218 Spring Parade 237 Squaw Man, The (1914) 161, 213, 214 Squaw Man, The (1918) 161, 213, 214 Squaw Man, The (1931) 161, 213, 214, 240 Stage Door 251 Stanno tutti bene (Everybody’s Fine) 177 Starbuck 116, 163, 177, 215 Star is Born, A (1937) 22, 182, 195, 208 Star is Born, A (1954) 22, 27, 182, 195, 208, 235 Star is Born, A (1976) 22, 24, 195, 208, 235 Star is Born, A (2018) 22, 23, 43, 69, 195, 234, 235, 240 Starsky and Hutch 83, 94 star vehicle 20–32, 45, 152, 257, 258

361

Star Wars 12, 13, 58, 200 Stasia, Cristina Lucia 238, 247 State Fair (1933) 54 State Fair (1945) 54 State Fair (1962) 54, 235 Statham, Jason 29 Steel 256 Steel Magnolias 45, 64, 257, 272 Steemers, Jeanette 147, 149, 156, 158, 163, 170n139, 170n140 Steinfeld, Hailee 25 Stella 22, 72, 269, 270, 272 Stella Dallas 22, 72, 269 Stenport, Anna Westerstål 44, 68, 112, 113, 114, 141, 173, 230 Stepford Wives, The 28, 121, 199, 213, 247 Stephens, Harvey 94 Step Lively 237 39 Steps, The 11 Steptoe and Son 116, 158, 255, 259 Stevens, Christopher 174 Stevens, George 264 Stevenson, Robert Louis 50, 54, 104, 197 Stewart, Dodai 45 Stewart, James 22, 88, 155 Stewart, Patrick 89 Stiller, Jerry 92 Sting 24 Stingiest Man in Town, The 206 Stockdale, Charles 114 Storm Over the Andes 122–123n32 Story of Mankind, The 122n17 Strange One, The 203 Strangers on a Train 51, 121, 198, 252 Stranger Things 99 Stratton, David 149 Strawberry Blonde, The 216, 219 Straw Dogs 131 streaming services 18, 43, 47, 58, 64, 67, 68, 112, 113, 114, 149, 150 Street Car Named Desire, A 64 Street-Porter, Janet 129, 132, 137 Streisand, Barbra 22, 24, 251 Strick, Philip 24–25 Stroman, Susan 251 Student Prince, The 235 Sturges, John 190 Sturges, Preston 185 subtitles 5, 140, 141, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 170n141, 170–171n151, 232, 267, 269 Sud, Veena 253 Suderman, Peter 100, 104, 105 suicide 143, 144, 207

362 Index Sullivan’s Travels 185 Summer Holiday 23, 237 Sun Shines Bright, The 214 superheroes 61, 177, 209, 246, 247, 249, 256, 276n62 Superman 61, 209, 212, 256 Superman Returns 246 Sure Thing, The 203 surveillance 6, 243, 259 Suspicion 72, 187 Suspiria 11, 65, 123n48, 189, 212, 244, 249, 270 Sutherland, Kiefer 26, 92, 98, 136 Svengali 81 Swedish media 14, 29, 33n18, 42, 87, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 123n48, 135, 141, 146, 151, 156, 157, 163, 171n171, 199, 238, 267, 268; see also Nordic media Sweeney, The 83 Sweeney Todd 237 Sweepings 91 Sweet Charity 238 Sweetie 236 Sweet Rosie O’Grady 237 Swept Away 24, 30, 35n30 Swimfan 204 Swinton, Tilda 189 Sword of Ali Baba, The 88 Sybill 21 Takal, Sophia 253 Taken 166 Taking of Pelham 123, The (1974) 55, 188, 243 Taking of Pelham 123, The (1998) 55 Taking of Pelham 123, The (2009) 55, 188, 243 Talbott, Gloria 104 Tale of Two Cities, A (1935) 112 Tale of Two Cities, A (1983) 206 Tale of Two Cities, A (1989) 112 talkie remakes 15, 26, 85, 87, 88, 112, 119, 213, 214, 215, 216, 234, 239 Tamblyn, Russ 89 Tass, Nadia 250 Taste the Blood of Dracula 88 Tatum, Channing 53 Taymor, Julie 252 TCM network 231 Technicolor 15; see also color remakes technophobia 180 teen remakes 203–204, 224n237, 273 Teen Wolf 63

Tempest, The 178, 252 Ten Commandments, The 15, 16, 22, 58, 161, 178, 214, 240 Teng, Elaine 148, 149, 170n151 Tennant, David 90, 145, 154, 171n184 Ten Nights in a Barroom 255 Terminator, The 188 Terminator Genisys 188 terrorism 139, 197, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 262; see also 9/11 Terry, Josh 168n60 Terry Teo 209 Tess of the Storm Country 182 Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The (1974) 3, 9, 52, 176, 211, 212, 214, 245, 260 Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The (2003) 3, 9, 211, 212, 245, 260 Thai media 31, 34n21, 115, 131, 163, 215 Thalavatta 235 That ’70s Show 165 That Certain Feeling 215 Thatcher, Margaret 111 That Darn Cat 27 That Lady in Ermine 236 theater 7, 108, 178, 189, 239, 279 666: The Child 33n11 These Three 91, 160, 194, 216 Thing, The (1982) 43, 68, 85, 182, 212, 261, 262 Thing, The (2011) 85Thing From Another World, The 14, 109, 182, 212, 261, 262 10 Things I Hate About You (1999) 63, 196, 203 10 Things I Hate About You (2009–2010) 63 Thing with Two Heads, The 255Thomas Crown Affair, The (1968) 92, 182 13 19, 29, 43, 116, 141, 192, 213, 218 Thomas, Betty 251 Thomas, Clarence 250 Thomas, Marlo 126n127 Thomas Crown Affair, The (1999) 92, 96, 182 Thompson, Bill 180 Thompson, Derek 46, 73 Thompson, Emma 28 Those Who Kill 118, 268 Thousand Acres, A 251 Three Bad Men 213, 214 Three Coins in the Fountain 215, 238 3D 4, 17–18, 22, 23, 36n86, 36n88, 37n92, 72, 140 Three for the Show 238 Three Fugitives 116, 162, 216

Index Three Men and a Baby 30, 49

Three Sailors and a Girl 237

Three’s Company 117, 158

Three Sons 91

Three Wise Women 166

Throw Momma From the Train 121, 198

Thunderball 88

Thunderbirds (1965–1966) 64, 83, 195

Thunderbirds (2004) 83

Thunderbirds Are Go 64, 195

Thuppakki 226n334

Tian mi mi Comrades: Almost a Love Story

116, 162, 214

Till Death Us Do Part 117, 158

‘Til There Was You 32n10

‘Til We Meet Again 18

Time Machine, The 93

Time to Kill 119

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (1979) 243

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011) 28, 243

To Die For 46

Tolstoy, Leo 88

Tom, Dick, and Harry 238

Tomb Raider 249

Tomorrowland 46–47, 56, 174, 180–181

Too Close for Comfort 117

Toolbox Murders 245

Too Many Husbands 238

Tootsie 256

Topaze 199

Toppman, Lawrence 13

Topsøe-Rothenborg, Barbara 252

Torch, The 163, 214

Total Recall (1990) 2, 100, 130

Total Recall (2012) 2, 100, 108, 130, 149

Toumarkine, Doris 30

Tourist, The 30, 34n26

Tower of London 91

Toy, The 30

Toy Story 51, 122n14, 280

Toy Story 4, 122n14, 280

3:10 To Yuma 22, 183, 233

Tracy, Spencer 96

Traffic 25

Training Day 63

transmedia remakes 7, 57, 64

Transmorphers 200

Transmorphers: Fall of Man 200

transvestism 262

Travers, Peter 97, 190, 193

Travolti da un insolito destino nell’azzurro

mare d’agosto (Swept Away) 24, 30, 35n30

Traylor, Garrett 44, 68, 112, 113, 141,

173, 230

363

Treasure Island 54

Treasure Planet 54, 197

Tree Grows in Brooklyn, A 64

Tremors 86, 89

Trials of Oscar Wilde, The 229

Trinadtsat 198

Troche, Rose 251, 254

Trolljegeren (Troll Hunter) 132

Trolls 174

Tromeo and Juliet 203

TRON 85

TRON: Legacy 85

True Grit (1969) 11, 182, 183

True Grit (2010) 11, 25, 182, 183

True Lies 49, 115

Truffaut, Francois 217

Trump, Donald 6, 140, 248, 249, 250,

274, 276n68

Truth About Charlie, The 1, 256

Tucker, Reed 97

Tufeld, Dick 94

Turnbull, Sue 153, 171n184 Turner, Lana 27, 122n17, 155

Turner & Hooch 229

Turturro, John 156

Tuttle, Frank 119, 215

tweens 203, 205, 208

Twentieth Century Fox 21, 23, 49, 54,

60, 68, 145, 201, 240

20th Century Fox see Twentieth Century Fox Twilight Zone, The (1959–1964) 65,

83, 84

Twilight Zone, The (1983) 83

Twilight Zone, The (1985–1989) 84

Twilight Zone, The (2003–2003) 84

Twilight Zone, The (2019–) 65

Twin, Aphex 232

twin films 228–229, 320

Twin Peaks 84, 85, 89, 176

Twitchell, James 142, 143, 144

Tyson, Cicely 256

13 Tzameti 19, 29, 42, 116, 141, 192,

213, 218

Ugly Betty 117

Ukikusa (Floating Weeds) 36n76, 226n334 Ukikusa monogatari (A Story of Floating Weeds) 36n76, 226n334 Uncle Buck 63, 257

Underneath, The 25

Un éléphant ça trompe énormément (An

Elephant Can Be Extremely Deceptive) 161

Unholy Three, The 26, 87

364 Index Un indien dans la ville (An Indian in the City) (1994) 222n111 uninspired remakes 2, 10, 34n29, 35n30, 187, 195, 218, 222n134, 279 Uninvited, The 131, 136 Universal Pictures 20, 50, 67, 70, 185, 206 Unknown, The 50 unofficial remakes 51–52, 120 Untouchables, The (1959–1964) 83, 84 Untouchables, The (1987) 83, 84 Untouchables, The (1993–1994) 84 Upper Hand, The 165 Upside, The 73, 132, 171n181, 183 Upstairs Downstairs 51 Uptight 255 Uruguayan media 252 Vadim, Roger 162, 215 Vagabond King, The 236 Valladares, Patricio 163, 215 Vamping Venus 237 Vampire Diaries, The 26 van Dulmen, Alexander 132 Van Dyke, Dick 92 Vanilla Sky 33n13, 90, 115, 133 Vanishing, The 42, 116, 131, 136, 143, 215, 218, 267 Van Looy, Erik 163, 215 Van Sant, Gus 19, 41, 52, 53, 60, 67, 121, 173, 179, 187, 231, 232 VanDerWerff, Todd 246 Varndell, Daniel 49, 122n11, 144, 184 Vaughn, Vince 26 Veber, Francis 116, 162, 216 Verevis, Constantine 15, 16, 44, 61, 63, 87, 162, 198, 216, 243 Verniere, James 2 Veronica Mars 65, 84, 249 Very Bad Things 253 Very British Coup, A 188, 196 Victor, Victoria 193–194 video 43, 47, 58, 68, 78n144 video games see computer games Viktor und Viktoria 194 Village of the Damned 33n14, 210, 214 Vincent will Meer (Vincent Wants to Sea) 252 Vinnaithandi Varuvaya 226n334 violence 6, 12, 104, 135, 136, 176, 180, 196, 204, 205, 207, 208, 211, 212, 213, 218, 241, 248, 254, 258, 260, 264, 265, 266; see also child abuse Virginian, The 160 Viva Laughlin 117, 157, 158

Volcano 229 von Sternberg, Josef 162, 215 Wabash Avenue 51, 91 Wahlberg, Mark 30, 228 Wake Wood 166 Walburn, Raymond 88 Walk, Don’t Run 263, 264 Walker, Deborah 40, 50, 52 Walker, Tim 2 Wallace, Lew 188 Wallander 117, 157, 268 Wallis, Quvenzhané 25, 210, 257 Walsh, Raoul 216, 219 Walston, Ray 93 Walton, Chris 168n48 Ward, Rachel 91 Warm Bodies 203 warmed-over remakes 72, 176–177, 279 Warner Brothers 12, 53, 54, 219, 259 Warner, Jack 53 War of the Worlds 93, 161, 209, 243, 245 Washington, Denzel 28, 30 Watch, The 51 Watson, Emma 21, 254 Watts, Naomi 22 Wayne, John 24, 91 We Are What We Are 115, 131 Weaver, Sigourney 94 Wednesday, A! 115, 172 Week-End at the Waldorf 27 Welch, Raquel 23 Wells, Gren 252 Wells, H.G. 50 Welsch, Tricia 144 Wentworth 254, 265 Wertmüller, Lina 30 West, Roland 216 West Side Story 196, 203, 240 Wet Hot American Summer 64 Wet Hot American Summer: First Day of Camp 64 Wet Hot American Summer: Ten Years Later 64 Whale, James 15, 216 What Price Glory 236 When a Stranger Calls 245 When Do You Commit Suicide? 164 Where is This Lady? 122n32 Where the Boys Are 203 White, Anne 133, 134 White, Jesse 88 White, Liz 155 White, Susanna 252

Index White Christmas 87

White House Down 229

whiteness 75, 159, 255, 256, 257, 258,

259, 266

whitewashing 131, 158–159, 258; see also racism Who is the Black Dahlia? 23

Who’s Afraid of Vagina Wolf 252

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? 252

Who’s the Boss 33n11, 165, 256

Who’s Your Caddy? 257

Why Leave Home? 236

Wicker Man, The (1973) 73, 151,

184, 245

Wicker Man, The (2006) 73, 151, 184,

205, 245

Wiig, Kristen 22

Wilde, Madison 179, 217

Wilde, Oscar 160, 229

Wilder, Billy 105, 160

Wilder, Gene 96

Wildermuth, Mark 244

Wilfred 90, 116

Wilkinson, Alissa 2

Will & Grace 84, 86, 90, 254

Willard 245

Williams, Barry 93

Williams, Frank 88

Williams, Joe 29

Williams, Michael 58–59 Williams, Robin 74, 152, 190

Willis, Bruce 21

Willmore, Alison 19, 39, 180, 261

Wills, David 41

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory 96,

183, 209

Wilson, Jake 135, 181

Winslet, Kate 22, 29

Winstone, Ray 29

Wire, The 153

Wir Monster (We Monsters) 253

Wiseman, Len 2

Wishbone 207

Wives Under Suspicion 119, 216

Wiz, The 235, 240, 255

Wizard of Oz, The (1925) 175

Wizard of Oz, The (1939) 175, 178,

180, 184, 185, 209, 234, 235, 240,

255, 279

woke remakes 74, 186, 206

Wolf Man, The 2, 212

Wolf, Stacy Ellen 239

Wolfe, Katie 252, 254

Wolfman, The 2, 187, 206

365

Woolverton, Linda 123n48

Woman I Love, The 162, 214

Woman in Red, The 161

Women, The (1939) 29, 33n17, 238, 252

Women, The (2008) 29, 33n17, 252

women’s pictures 100, 272; see also

melodrama

women’s liberation see feminism

Wonder Woman (1974) 61, 185, 249

Wonder Woman (2017) 61, 185, 249, 250

Wong, Dorothy 137, 158

Woo, John 116, 162, 216

Wood, Robin 244

Woodard, Alfre 21

Woodlock, Lynn 266

Woods, Faye 137

Woods, Paul 259

Working Girl 63

world media 5, 127, 129, 132, 133, 136,

137, 140, 147, 150; see also European

media

World War II 239, 241, 242, 245

Wo shi zheng ren (The Witness)

226–227n334

Wo zhi nv ren xin (What Women Want) 259

Wren, Celia 99, 191

Wright, Neelam Sidhar 75n18

writers’ strike 55

Wrye, Donald 216

Wu, Yonggang 226n334

Wuthering Heights (1920) 143, 235

Wuthering Heights (1939) 143, 144

Wuthering Heights (1970) 204

Wuthering Heights (2003) 235

Wuthering Heights (2011) 252

Wyler, William 91, 160, 194, 216

Xanadu 24, 238, 240

X-Files, The (1993–2002) 84, 153

X-Files, The (2016–) 84

Yabroff, Jennie 133

Yanzhi Lei (Rouge Tears) 226–227n334

Yashere, Gina 139, 140

Yentl 203, 250

Yôjinbô (Yojimbo) 51, 156, 161, 190,

198, 200

Yo soy Betty, la fea (I Am Betty, the Ugly

Girl) 117

Yo Soy Franky 118

You 43

You Can’t Escape Forever 53

You Can’t Run Away From It 111, 237

Young Frankenstein 199

366 Index Young, Alan 93

Young, Rob 2, 3

You’re Never Too Young 91

YouTube 73, 107, 113

You’ve Got Mail 178, 251, 272

You Were Never Lovelier 115, 238

Zameer 226n334

Zanger, Anat 103

Zanuck, Darryl 53, 201

Zeffirelli, Franco 204, 205

Zeitchik, Steven 6, 10, 71, 112, 140

Zero Hour! 24

Zinnemann, Fred 160

Ziskin, Laura 46

Žižek, Slavoj 247

Zong heng si hai (Once a Thief) 116,

162, 216